it's not with the suspect but is what a reasonable innocent person in the suspect shoes would have believed as to whether he was in custody or not while while we're on let me just make one thing in his testimony he said he was not told that he could leave at any time and one or more of the detectives testified that he was told that at the dormitory and then again at the police station now is that that to me is in controversy it is to determine whether he was in custody or not and in fact as this defendant is a high school graduate he's a college student he's probably more intelligent more gullible than your average person is questioned by police am unless he wrote out a statement he was going to have to take a polygraph now when a reasonable person think at that time that maybe he wasn't going back to a fancy exam unless he cooperated with them and took either rode it out or took a is it possible to be in custody and let out of custody per an hour he was in custody and at the end they decide well we are i got any time anywhere no problem and just to correct that they just let me go home was the lunchroom well i mean the policeman not the lunchroom and everything else does he just know it's the third floor of the police station or whatever building he thought well the reason the reason significant  and we get back to that part about the polygraph you're saying it wasn't said or it was said that you're going to be denied if you don't cooperate and obviously do something that you have to take a polygraph you is decision to grant the defendants motion to suppress based on the miranda violation should not be over i believe this morning the importance of this case is really to years i think sixty six grand and yet we're still coming with cases with police officers why would contend in this case have made every records show i think he testified or indeed he was a special program and what effect his records of what where he was and rolled and things like that i didn't know if that indicated them one way or the other i don't think it would outside or not there is no disagreement that there was nothing whatsoever to her fans ever are and minor from going to his door and matters that the supreme court has discussed in the braggs case people versus married bragg's a very important case i suggest very relevant to this this case  will mean that the rep you put in hearing your argument at least to me one of the keys to the case is the standard of review and you've heard that the state believes it did no will review across the board these are only standard music case it would you mind record why did you go to the police department with them from the door answer i felt i had no choice comprehension so this is a young man with with a definite problem mentally costed he is not here under arrest that would be an event but custody is much broader than that decision after decision custody is a well very politically applied things properly and he's found that this nineteen year old alex student with no criminal record no knowledge of police tactics and how returned to his residence after questioning he was never physically restrained he was never handcuffed he was question her room with an open door and was even left alone in that room for a while he was always do we accept the doctor's testimony or the nurse as to his mental condition or status do we accept that yes and then do we consider a reasonable person with that condition is that how we here for the world there's no reason why this court for the soon to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in a college student would prevent him from knowing whether or not he was just so take it so there's no evidence to support theory th