With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “custody”] is to determine what were “the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” — a “distinctly factual” inquiry as to which “we must defer to the trial judge’s factual findings and accept any reasonable inferences [she] has drawn from the evidence.” In re J.H., 928 A.2d at 650-51. The issue of “whether on the duly established facts, appellant was subject to custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings” is a legal one, which we review de novo. Hill v. United States, 858 A.2d 435, 442 (D.C. 2004). As the Supreme Court has observed, “[u]nfortunately, the task of defining ‘custody is a slippery one.” Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 309, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); see also Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 441, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (<HOLDING>). It is clear, however, that an individual may

A: recognizing that not all statements obtained by the police after a person has been taken into custody are to be considered the product of interrogation
B: recognizing that police and the courts will continue occasionally to have difficulty deciding exactly when a suspect has been taken into custody
C: holding that although interrogation may not continue after a suspect has requested counsel the police legitimately may inquire whether the suspect has changed his mind about speaking to them without an attorney
D: holding officer was performing discretionary act in deciding when and how to arrest suspect
B.