With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that a person whom an officer has formally and “physically” arrested is “in custody” for purposes of article I, section 10. See State v. Vallesteros, 84 Hawai'i 295, 301, 933 P.2d 632, 638 (1997) (“arrest” involves, inter alia, “talcing an alleged violator into extended physical custody”); State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 301 n. 6, 687 P.2d 544, 550 n. 6 (1984) (observing that “[i]f the defendant had been arrested before being asked if she had been drinking, Miranda warnings were clearly in order”); State v. Amorin, 61 Haw. 356, 360, 604 P.2d 45, 48 (1979) (noting that “it is undisputed that after his arrest, the defendant was in the custody of [the police]” (citing, generally, Patterson, 59 Haw. 357, 581 P.2d 752)). Cf. State v. Nakoa, 72 Haw. 360, 366, 817 P.2d 1060, 1064 (1991) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ryan, 62 Haw. 99, 101, 612 P.2d 102,

A: holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station
B: 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
C: holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave
D: holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute
B.