With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 529); see United States v. Ortega, 379 F.Supp.2d 1177, 1186 (D. Kan. 2005) (outlining similar factors). Here, the record shows that Pacheco’s immigration-related questioning “did not take place, during an ‘ordinary’ traffic stop, as described by the Berkemer Court.” Jimenez-Robles, 98 F.Supp.3d at 915. Instead, that questioning occurred during a roadside stop’so coercive as to require Miranda warnings before any interrogation. For starters, a reasonable person in Pacheco’s position would not have felt free to leave. Id. at 916-17. Agent Myers made it clear throughout his testimony that his end game was busting Pacheco for guns and drugs, and he never told Pacheco that he was or would be free to leave. Id.; see also United States v. Williams, 690 F.Supp.2d 829, 846 (D. Minn. 2010) (<HOLDING>). ' Before questioning him, Agent Myers removed

A: holding that warnings given to a witness by the trial court and the prosecutor concerning the possibility that testifying could place the witness in jeopardy of revocation of his plea agreement and charges of perjury or false statement did not violate the defendants due process rights because the warnings merely corroborated in a straightforward and nonthreatening manner the information given by the witness attorney
B: holding that miranda warnings were required due to irregularities in traffic stop officers insistence on pulling the vehicle over and lack of warnings that motorists wexe free to leave
C: holding that once the officer asked the defendant to exit his vehicle the encounter became a stop because the defendant was no longer free to leave
D: holding police display of blue lights after pulling behind stopped vehicle constituted a stop
B.