Nickson

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Cindy S. Nickson challenges the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress statements she made to store detectives who were investigating a theft from a cash register at the McClellan Air Force Base Exchange. Specifically, Nick-son argues that she was interrogated while in custody and that the store detectives were law enforcement officers obligated to provide her with Miranda warnings. She argues that their failure to do so means her statements should be suppressed.

Because Miranda warnings are required only for individuals who are questioned in custody, 1 we directed the district court to *129 make a determination as to whether Nick-son was in custody when she was questioned. The district court found that she was not. 2 On de novo review of this mixed question of fact and law, 3 we agree with the district court and affirm.

Whether a suspect is in custody depends, in viewing all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, on “whether there [was] a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” 4 We look at the objective circumstances of the interrogation 5 and determine whether the suspect…