With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applies simply because a reviewing court concludes that, even in the absence of any formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement, the questioning took place in a “coercive environment.” Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. But police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is the one whom the police suspect. See also United States v. Jones, 21 F.3d 165, 170 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). We hold that Defendant was not in custody

A: holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody
B: holding a defendant was not in custody for purposes of miranda after he consented to go to police headquarters
C: holding defendant was in custody under miranda while being detained under terry
D: holding that miranda was constitutionally based but declining to go further than miranda  to establish a constitutional right
B.