that that opinion is not entitled to at the deference for two reasons one it is based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact and this is probably our strongest argument because a devout a supreme court says that after mr redeker was handcuffed he uses initially handcuffed on the scene at approximately ten fifteen that evening pm the handcuffs are taken off and so we can sign a consent to search form approximately a half hour later the nevada supreme court says that after the handcuffs are taken off there's was not in fact free to leave jensen number net testify that for the next five hours until at least two forty five in the morning so long clear what happens after that that they had him under their eye the entire time he was never allowed to leave the presence of their eyes that he was made to stay in the front yard of the area that mr redeker made repeated requests to go inside the house he made repeated requests to get medicine and he made repeated requests for food and water now the government makes a big deal the fact that maybe mr redeker was allowed to eat mcdonald's some undetermined time later i will know that jensen and burnett said specifically the two officers who were in charge of supervising mr r er for a five and a half hour period that they did not give him a chair they did not allow him to have water they didn't know how food now it's not that important because it is even my client mentioned to me they could have been harmless due to the post miranda statement well that's a excellent question once again at the deference would not apply here because the nevada supports supreme court specifically said because we find he wasn't in custody during the even if we agree with you on that why wouldn't the post miranda statements cure any harm if you look at even the opinion organ v l stad which was the primary opinion argue to them about a supreme court interrogated for thirty to forty minutes by jensen and vernet directly confronted with evidence of guilt that they found in the search of his home but that's not recorded we don't know exactly how combative counsel was missing just precisely when do you contend he was in custody i mean after all evolve interiorly went to the police station he was uncuffed he rode in the police car at his house he was uncuff and allowed to smoke he was never told he could he had to talk or could not leave first of all this is after being in police custody for six hours now they the government in other words you agree he wasn't in custody until he was at the station in the no saying no he was in custody at the moment he was ordered it exodus current handcuffs were put on him and no time after that would any reasonable person that felt like he was free to leave that they got the facts of the government rely on the most of the facts that he was allowed to wander around his front yard which are very small front yard but that ok some take redeker and put him in a room so he was made to stay in a room for six hours at a relatively cold temperatures about sixty to fifty five degrees at night he's in t shirt and shorts the polo shirt not allowed to eat he's not allowed to sleep he's not allowed to get his medication is not allowed in this house he's in a completely police dominated abas fear under supervision didn't ask for to leave then all of that yes he did and it's directly we have direct evidence of that in the jackson interview which was recorded and you can find it beginning on the record at page ten twelve through about ten forty seven and you'll note in that interview and i would encourage the court to look carefully at that interview that although jackson starts off nicely it becomes it's as a trial court found a note that the trial court found that he was in fact in custody at this time and suppress the statements because of that be i mean over and over again no response he says i need help i'm tired i'm tired of talking there's evidence in this record is this replete with indications that redeker did not want to speak to law enforcement that he was free to leave he said come with me to the station and that was an act of yes and so it wasn't an acquiescence it was a bow to the overwhelming police authority and show of authority and how do we know that for many reasons one of the reasons is many times redeker indicated a strong intent to no longer engage in talking engage in interrogation and a law enforcement never relented never read him his rights never let him leave and i'll note under craighead w incidentally this court was actually cited to that about a supreme court during the oral argument in this case in your argument is in the record under craighead the fact that he's in the front yard under this police dominate a atmosphere all factors into a finding nothing nothing wrong with that at all what is wrong is when somebody is in custody in something to interrogation you have to read them their rights that's that's was the fault here nobody we aren't saying although the original protective service was challenged below that's no longer an issue strongly supports my argument that the majority opinion is wrong in saying there is no factors with regard to mr redeker was in custody because the dissent lays it all out in great detail and is not contrary to the majority decision other than that key point because hello your honour's heidi stern first fondant it's our position that redeker was definitely not in custody during the hearty interrogation at the police station i was detective party of the homicide detective and this court considers various various standards in order to determine this this court considers the language used to summon here there was a question as to whether redeker would voluntarily go with detective party the other question is whether the red whether redeker was confronted with his guilt harty did not do that until after issuing a miranda warning the physical surroundings in this case i think actually argue in favor of red occurred not being in custody because he was removed from the situation where he'd been at in front of his home and voluntarily in the front seat of the police car travel to the police station unrestrained and was given a drink at that point and  even though the room was small and there were two detectives there in the room he was told he was free to leave he was told he was not under arrest so council it's your position that interrogation room in the police station is less than a person's home not usually or on or in this case i think it was at least equally equally non coercive i would say because you have to consider whether a reasonable person would expect they're free to leave if you're in a police station and you're told you're free to leave you're told you're not under arrest you are not restrained in any way the doors not locked on you and you're given a soda i think the objective lea reasonable person would expect that they could end that discussion and go elsewhere so in this case it is that is that is the situation the other question that this court looks at is the degree of pressure placed upon  the placed upon redeker again no coercive questions or questions about guilt were asked by hardie before the miranda warning was given the right occurs confession premer and a warning was spontaneously and voluntarily given and the last factor is the duration and again this questioning by harvey was was quite separate from what had gone on before we would urge this court not to find that there was a custodial relationship going on here for six hours basically redeker was hanging out in front of his home even though and let me address right now the the argument made by opposing counsel that that the nevada supreme court erred in finding there was no evidence that red occurred was free to leave because what what happened a at his home the only evidence that he was actually not free to leave was the subjective opinions of the police officers which came in later so in fact the nebraska nevada supreme court was correct in finding there was no objective evidence that he wasn't free to leave he was sitting in front of his home he did have food he when the officers said that they didn't give him any food it was simply that they were not taking responsibility for him and in fact jensen testified at trial that there were large blocks of time in which no one was really paying attention to read occur and he was left unattended when hardy arrived hardy testified was not attended by any police officers that there were only a couple of police officers even at the home and they were not the ones who had done the initial investigative search they were different ones hard questioning was not connected in any way to jackson's to gents or to officers jensen and burnett he didn't even know about that questioning when he arrived so coming back to  into the relevance of that the duration of hardy's questioning was short less than an hour in fact just a few minutes really at the police at the police station before redeker voluntarily confessed to the crime and to hardy's credit as soon as redeker did that he issued a miranda warning and redeker who was will point out an intelligent person he had a college degree had you know a reasonably good job he voluntarily and intelligently said that he knew about his miranda rights he understood what they entailed and he still did continue after that warning to voluntarily g supreme court found was that this was one long six hour continuous detention and i think the only way the court was able to do that was to overlook some of the things in the record that separated that detention so instead of accepting for example that when officers burnett and jensen handcuffed redeker that that was only a thirty to forty minutes investigative stop that the dissent found that that then connected to jackson's questioning of red occur and that jackson's question ever had occurred then connected to harvey's questioning of redeker and i would i would draw this court's attention to a couple of things one is that the dissent really overlooks the fact that there was an investigation going on here it was a missing person's case the police officers needed to be there and kept redeker out of his home not because they were detaining him but because they were still searching the home and if you look through the trial testimony not only were they searching the home but they had to call various types of people in the middle of the night to come and take pictures to come and collect evidence and do various things like that so as the investigation of his home was a lengthy process but he was not kept out of his home because he was being detained he was kept out because his home via his consent was kept out of his home because it was an investigation an ongoing investigation in the home instead they viewed the dissent viewed the fact that he was kept out of his home and kept in the his front yard essentially as a way that he was being detained i  thought that the dissent was also thought that the situation in the before he was mirandized in the police station was a situation where he was under arrest they did as well yes that's that's correct and if that is supported if the dissent is right and if we do de novo review and we re with the dissent on that go we have to we're no because the miranda warning cured his pre warning confession because going on what he said afterwards and yes and actually that's another error that the dissent made they didn't apply the l stat analysis which is when justice kennedy tells us that it is common for police officers to question a suspect multiple times and in different ways and with different people and as a result of that being a common and a good police practice you have to have the ability to keep miranda open to correction that when there is an inadvertent confession before a suspect is mirandized you have to be able to correct that and that is if this court takes that view just judge schroeder then the we would argue th the miranda warning given here was voluntarily accepted and understood by mr ruddock or kelso did you say that at the police station mr redeker was told that he was free to go yes understanding and finally i would just say that the missouri versus siebert case is simply not relevant here and there's the about a supreme court did not apply that analysis for a reason and it's because there's an absolutely no evidence of a deliberate strategy here to not mirandize mr rudd occur and try to get a confession out of him a review of the trial court record and the questioning transcripts reveals that the questions premer and were geared towards finding the missing person and only after the miranda warning was given were questions about mr ed guilt given to him and if the court has nothing further it looks like i'm out of time i'm trying to look on page three and i need to see where there was testimony that he was told he was  wasn't free to go at that point no i did not did you ask no i didn't talk to the officers so the so mr radical may have been told by the other officers do not leave you don't know i don't know and he's talking  hearty he's talking about the previous officers but in addition i can find the court the citation from the transcript directly i don't have that written down because these are the trial the trial fight ations but that jensen then burnett said many times that he was watching some record for seventy three seventy four we watched him the entire time so he wouldn't leave no miranda not free to leave for a new one clear not free to leave forty i'm having trouble understanding why it was you know he should be considered in custody when he was told to stay in the front  yard they were searching the house because that seemed we were discussing before that seemed to be a perfectly good police practice to keep anybody who was in the house there while they searched the house then then he went they asked him if he would go to the police station with them and he went and then he got to the police station is this crack yes and he was questioned yes and i'm having trouble i can i can understand how we look to what happened what the situation was in the police station which is what the dissent seems to focus on and the bands but i but you keep going back to the situation at the house and i'm not sure how that relates to the question of whether or not he was under arrest when he was in the police station when the question is when did he leave custody i mean the guy is the state's argument is that and we know if he had here's that they are right if he had tried to wander off they would have stopped him he was not free to go and it's reasonable to assume that an objective person when involved in a situation where they are not in fact free to go would perceive it as such and then about if you if you have a situation where there's a crime committed at a party and you put everybody in the party they stay in the backyard don't leave because we're we've got to search the house and they can do an investigation that they're not under arrest there'd be an investigative detention they would be seized for some fourth amendment purposes and such it would be a seizure because they acquiesce to authority does it involve until de facto  nevada law per se and he sees or the last more than sixty minutes is a de facto arrest which is a mastering court in its opinion and acknowledged but never applied in this case there's just there's no point in the situation where he was ever free to leave he was detained in pretty stark circumstances i mean he was allowed to wander around his front yard in the cold and that's when we get to this point where hearty shows up his will is broken down he asked for help so many times and if you look at the beginning it's not true once again and again that party never asked me criminality and questions premer and if you look at page ten fifty three they start going into it so tell me what happened between you and talk to the seated and