when he spoke with the first officer in the’early morning hours of December 6. Although the court found that .the first officer initiated contact with Perry, awaking him in his bedroom and announcing his presence as a police officer—a fact that weighs in favor of a finding of custody—the record amply supports the court’s conclusion that Perry was not in custody at that time. Specifically, the Court found that the questioning was conducted by a single officer in circumstances familiar to Perry; Perry was never physically restrained; the questioning by the first officer was brief; and, although at some point in his investigation the first officer formulated an intent to place Perry under arrest, he never manifested that intent to Perry. See Dion, 2007 ME 87, ¶¶ 25-27, 928 A.2d 746 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, viewing the totality of
holding in the context of a prosecution for second degree escape that although defendant was not handcuffed he had nonetheless been placed under arrest had had his liberty restrained in that he was not free to leave and at that point the first step in the process of transporting him to the police station had begun consequently the defendants arrest was complete and he was in custody holding that the court did not err in concluding that a defendant was not in custody where he made statements to law enforcement officers in his own home was not physically restrained during the conversation never manifested an intent to terminate the interaction and the officers never indicated to the defendant that they had probable cause to arrest him holding that a defendant who was told several times he was not under arrest and who never asked to leave during an interview with investigators was not in custody holding that because law enforcement officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant the evidence obtained during the time that the defendant was in lawful custody was not tainted by the earlier unlawful entry into his residence discussing harris 495 us at 18 110 sct 1640 holding that the facts that the vehicle described in the tip was parked outside the home that allen gave inconsistent answers to officers questioning and that in addition the defendant fit the physical description of the suspect were sufficient to support the officers reasonable inference that the defendant was actually the suspect and therefore that there was probable cause to arrest him