With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not know how Chenault had obtained or altered the documents. Thus, although the agents might have been nearing the end of their investigation, they cannot reasonably be said to have concluded it. Because investigation of these major elements of Chenault’s part in the crime was incomplete, probable cause for arrest likely did not exist. The agents twice told Chenault that they were not arresting him. Although Che-nault now says he was afraid to leave the room, he appeared eager to talk. He told Agent Rust that he wanted to talk to clear things up. Additionally, the questioning occurred in circumstances far less custodial than those in the Supreme Court cases in which custody was not found. See, e.g., California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 3520, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Here, the questioning occurred in Chenault’s

A: holding that the initial questioning was merely investigatory and miranda warnings were not necessary until after police found incriminating evidence
B: holding that the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action beyond merely listening that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks
C: holding that merely because questioning was designed to produce incriminating responses took place at the police station and occurred only after the defendant was identified as a suspect did not trigger miranda
D: holding that police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning
C.