☢ test - Í

the individual under questioning is a suspect, if undisclosed, does not bear upon the question whether the individual is in custody for purposes of Miranda. [Cit.]’ Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 324(II) (114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293) (1994). The relevant inquiry remains how a reasonable person in Sosniak's position would have perceived his situation. See McAllister v. State, 270 Ga. 224, 228(1) (507 S.E.2d 448) (1998).” Accord, Leslie v. State , 292 Ga. 368, 738 S.E.2d 42 (February 4, 2013); Dillard v. State , 297 Ga. 756, 778 S.E.2d 184 (October 5, 2015). State v. Billings, 303 Ga.App. 419, 693 S.E.2d 627 (April 6, 2010). Officer’s questioning suspect in ministry’s mail room was not custodial. “The evidence shows that Billings was not isolated by police for questioning, but was questioned in an open work area in the presence of Angel Food workers. He was not restrained during the questioning. There is no evidence that, during the questioning, the officer seized the evidence that Billings produced by consent from his pockets. Even if the officer had probable cause to arrest Billings after he produced the pills, there is no evidence that the officer told him during the questioning that she intended to make an arrest. After the short period of questioning, the officer left Billings without restraint to question other witnesses before returning 30 minutes later to make a formal arrest. We find under these circumstances that a reasonable person in Billings's position would not have perceived himself to be in police custody during the questioning.” State v, Carder, 301 Ga.App. 901, 689 S.E.2d 347 (December 11, 2009). In defendant’s prosecution for vehicular homicide, DUI, and related charges, suppression of defendant’s statements to officer at hospital affirmed; trial court could find that defendant was in custody where officer instructed hospital staff not to let her leave before officer talked to her. “ We find that a reasonable person in Carder's position would have believed that she was being restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest, when pursuant to a police request, hospital staff prevented her from leaving the hospital after she refused medical treatment. [Officer] Shelton then located Carder and a nurse in the emergency room and escorted them to a hospital trauma room, where he questioned Carder about the accident for 48 minutes.” Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335, 687 S.E.2d 438 (November 9, 2009). Defendant was not in custody when interviewed as one of the friends of the murder victim: “Arrington was among a group of people outside the victim's residence when the police were investigating the crime scene. When the victim's sister identified those outside as friends of the victim, police requested that the witnesses come to the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) of the Law Enforcement Center to be interviewed. Arrington showed no hesitation in complying with the officers' request. He was transported to the CID in a police car, but he was not shackled or handcuffed. Although police had detected that the sole of Arrington's boot appeared to be similar to a print found inside the victim's residence, the investigator testified that that fact alone did not make him a suspect and that, at the time the witnesses were asked to come to the CID, no one had been identified as a suspect. When Arrington arrived at the CID, he and the other witnesses were interviewed. As with the interviews of the other witnesses, the police asked Arrington general questions about his relationship with the victim, they tape recorded the interview, the interview lasted approximately half an hour, and Arrington was not advised of his Miranda rights, because the officers did not consider him to be in custody. Either shortly before or immediately after this interview, the officers asked Arrington to give signed consent to search for biological specimens and to search his person, his clothing, and his residence. The investigator who obtained the consents testified that no threats or promises were made to Arrington, that Arrington had no questions regarding the forms and never indicated a reluctance to sign them, and that, at the time that Arrington signed the forms, he was not under arrest and was free to leave.” State v. Folsom, 286 Ga. 105, 686 S.E.2d 239 (November 2, 2009). Evidence supported trial court’s finding that defendant was effectively under arrest at time of statement. “Folsom is a heavy-set man who walks laboriously with a cane and uses a portable oxygen tank. The recording also shows that Folsom sat in a corner of the small room away from the door, and could not exit without Agent Cobb moving from his seat and/or exiting the room. Officer Chad Henderson was also in the small room for most of the interview. Agent Cobb questioned Folsom for approximately six hours. For the first two to three hours, Folsom was not told he was under arrest or read Miranda warnings. Folsom was also not told he could leave; although he was allowed several bathroom and smoking breaks as long as officers were in close proximity to him. Early in the interview, Folsom told authorities he had taken several prescribed medications.” “In this case, the record supports the trial court’s findings that: (1) Folsom was never told that he was free to leave; (2) Folsom was kept either under surveillance or in a closed interrogation room for the entire six hours; (3) Folsom was explicitly told that the evidence pointed towards him; and (4) Folsom was, in essence, required to come to the police station for questioning by officers who waited at his home and ensured that he arrived at the police station for questioning by following him. Under these circumstances, in which Folsom was sequestered for hours, asked incriminating questions repeatedly, and was never given any indication that he was free to leave or terminate the interview, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in its determinations that a reasonable person in Folsom’s situation would believe that he was in custody and, concomitantly,