With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". however, cannot carry the day for Harlan; we have held in other cases that suspects were not in custody where they were moved. See, e.g., United States v. Wyatt, 179 F.3d 532, 537 (7th Cir.1999) (taking suspect uncuffed in a squad car to police station not custodial); United States v. Jones, 21 F.3d 165, 170 (7th Cir.1994) (transporting suspect to police headquarters in squad car did not render interrogation custodial). All of the other factors weigh against Harlan. He consented to speak with the officers, and to do so outside the store rather than to remain there. See Booker v. Ward, 94 F.3d 1052, 1058 (7th Cir.1996) (stating where suspect voluntarily agreed to interrogation, that interrogation was not necessarily custodial); United States v. Betts, 16 F.3d 748, 762 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (abrogated on other grounds by United States

A: holding that fifth amendment protection against selfincrimination requires police to notify suspect of right to counsel and to cut off interrogation once suspect invokes the right absent counsel further interrogation may not occur unless suspect initiates subsequent conversation if police initiate subsequent interrogation there can be no valid waiver of counsel even though police advise suspect of his or her constitutional rights and suspect acquiesces in the interrogation
B: holding that a de facto arrest had occurred where petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found  but rather was taken  to a police car transported to a police station and placed in an interrogation room
C: holding interrogation not custodial where suspect was given a choice of being interviewed in police station or elsewhere
D: holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds silence during police custodial interrogation
C.