making you're conceding that the witnesses put forth by the state were credible and the judge found them that way then you get your mirro that review of what we know what is at stake after he had been treated for a head injury at a hospital within two blocks of the address where ms also was murdered that's pressure on and he was brought in because they wanted to find out if there was any connection between officers and they talk about handcuffing they talk about the defendant being dragged from his home and if we reject him if you tell us those are set aside or we have an episode of the station we contend that he was a definitely arrest for the home and even if this court determines that he was not a risk of the home he was the rest of the station so the train the better for the home just so it's clear at the station we're talking about a statement by mr cort no if the defendant arrived there at sixty or thereabouts and mr court you know gives a statement at six thirty am implicating the defendant that could be so you're talking about an arrest having occurred prior to that warnings just a bit when he's in for good ha serious this is he's here as a possible alibi witness for a person we believe may have been involved in a murder and to that extent i want to make sure this guy doesn't lie to me and so i'm going arrested or suspected of a problem is the five o'clock in the morning tied to something rousting or is it tied to the time frame that this all took place when they got fourteen up when cortinas said i didn't know anything about this objective statements from the individual that he's going along voluntarily why should it make any difference that the defendant thinks he's under arrest or thinks he has no choice if he tells the police i'm going along with you the police act on that objective that well in those actually did a similar case and help the texas in that case they you know that the police actually asked the person well that's true but they can't do it without you know with these should be able to do so without violating the credit it's also a little you know making like a police investigation to think that they're just out there trying to get evidence from anybody happy to have to sit and wait till it is a good time so that the police still look like they're doing something wrong with home as well as the time they did it for tina i think really trying to find out whether he knows something or doesn't know something or these supposed to then wait for several hours till it's ten o'clock in the morning to go out and check out the alibi or should they be doing what was right for fourteen and that is getting in or out yes and he should have to sit in a police station and wait for them to decide well this isn't the right time to go talk to the help i mean it doesn't make sense these are trying to get get something done for corteen either get him in or that but in addition to that you know that we have the police language and here he was mr gomez was told to get dressed in addition to that there are things that he didn't they didn't tell him so they never told him he was not under arrest they never told him that they could go back to bed they never told him that he was free to leave the station  the trial court here just initially did not use the wrong standard perhaps it was in our police stated but it was not the wrong standard even if it was this court could affirm for any reason the trap hurts the language of the trial judge what did he say he said that the that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the station nothing wrong about that which is what he did the question here is based on the detective's testimony whether or not the detached the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the station and stayed there until six thirty voluntarily and the answer clearly is that he dead the defendant says the facts are undisputed they are what is undisputed is that the detectives treated the defendant like an alibi witness they asked the defendant if you knew where tina and if you go to the station to talk about fourteen and using him as an alibi they did not gallic him they did not shout at him they did not display their weapons they weren't asked off was a completely amicable situation at the defendant's house so much so that they even answered the defendant's sister's questions about the educational requirements for becoming a police officer he was not handcuffed he was not search the police did not physically touch him the defendant walked him self to the car and really need him off when there were police officers and  an interview room that was open it was unlocked the defendant had access to the bathroom on his own down the hall any use then he was told he could use the bathroom he i'm sorry the phone he chose not to call and he was only at the station for an hour and a half before probable cause developed these detectives by looking at these hacks they were not on a fishing expedition to find probable cause for this defendant's arrest they thought he was an alibi witness and they treated him like one they were looking to get a confession from the defendant but just to verify cortina statement and you know that because they didn't even ask him anything about the crime they only asked about protecting his whereabouts if the defendant was uncomfortable scared or wanted to go home he could have called his mom he chose not to the most telling fact here is that they did not treat him like a suspect  placed him at the scene then they treated him in a starkly different manner like they treat suspects they put him in a locked interview room and they didn't talk to him for three hours the detect the detectives actions here were perfectly proper they did what was minimally necessary to properly presence he said that they went to the house at five in the morning and welcome up it was early but it's just isn't right pointed out they were in the midst of a murder investigation that was the process that they were running the course of their investigation they didn't surround the house they didn't have a swat team there and they didn't need to confirm his alibi at his house the lead detective wasn't there the most prudent thing to do was to bring him back to the station and hash it all out there was nothing wrong with the way they conduct their investigation the defendant complained that he was not told that he could refuse to go to the station but the law doesn't require that every citizen has a duty to cooperate he argues that he only gave a monosyllabic response but really the officer's questions didn't require any more than that and it's not the detectives fault the defendant wasn't chatty the fact that he wasn't given an opportunity to drive himself to the station really is inconsequential the police can drive a person to the station for a consensual interview again advised of his miranda rights and it's just  right pointed out it's a factor it's one factor and it doesn't turn the encounter into a seizure the defendant claims through i'm sorry argues that the detective said he believed the defend it was under arrest but those thoughts were conveying to the defendant so it doesn't matter if you look at all of these nine hundred flights that he points out collectively individually they don't equate with their arrests the detectives ran a proper investigation they didn't run afoul of the defendant's court the memmott rights in any way the trial cour that the defendant voluntarily went to the station and remained there until six thirty one probable cause developed was not against the manifest way that the evidence don't i don't think i don't really think it's realistic to say that individuals that are actually rest are allowed to go from the you know lock the room that spot i'm the even be townspeople he so this comes up time and time again so that the fact that handcuffs were not used is certainly not just questions thank you