of fact or a mixed question of law and fact does not affect our standard of review in this instance. As stated, because the trial court’s determination was based upon the same video evidence in this record, our review is de novo. Background The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides individuals with the right to have counsel present during a custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court has defined “custodial interrogation” as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602; see also Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Article I, section 9 of the Tennessee
holding that the fifth amendments protection against selfincrimination is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that the confrontation clause is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding second amendment right is incorporated against the states through fourteenth amendment