With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Amendment rights to show that he had something to hide violates Due Process. See Aplt. Br. at 12. The Doyle Court held that a defendant may not be impeached with evidence of his silence at the time of his arrest and after his receipt of Miranda warnings. See Doyle, 426 U.S. at 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240. To the extent that Mr. Dozal argues that he was penalized for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-inerimi-nation, see Aplt. Br. at 12, we note that he was not in custody at the time he refused to consent to the search. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981) (distinguishing custodial interrogation from Fourth Amendment detentions, which are “substantially less intrusive”); United States v. Ritchie, 35 F.3d 1477, 1485-86 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, his statements to the officers

A: holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found
B: holding that defendant was not in miranda custody during knock and talk interview at his residence
C: holding that search of appellants suitcase found on the floor next to the couch on which he was sleeping was an unconstitutional search of his person and was not authorized by a search of the residence
D: holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence
D.