defendant’s appearance and the story he told to explain it, and did not exceed the scope of that investigation. The forty-five minute duration was fully justified, given the time to travel in search of the “fight scene,” to return, and to photograph defendant. If defendant’s detention by the police amounted to custody, the police would have been required to inform him of his Miranda rights before commencing an interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The test used to determine if a person is in custody under a Fifth Amendment analysis is whether the person’s freedom of movement is restricted to the extent it would be tantamount to formal arrest. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3150, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (<HOLDING>); California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1123,
holding that certain police stops of limited duration that are reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation are legal holding that comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions associated with ordinary traffic stops explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that terry stops are subject to the dictates of miranda  holding that traffic stops based on probable cause are valid even if the officer stopping the vehicle suspects that the occupant is engaged in other illegal activity holding random traffic stops for license and registration checks are contrary to fourth amendment holding that reasonable suspicion standard applies to routine traffic stops