What is the effect of the arresting officer's testimony that a defendant and his companions consented to accompany the police to the police station house to answer questions?

The uncontradicted testimony of the arresting officer demonstrated that the defendant and his companions voluntarily and without objection consented to accompany the police to the station house to answer questions, and that the defendant was not placed in custody until after the witness identified him. The mere fact that the defendant may have felt obliged to cooperate with the police in order to maintain an appearance of innocence does not call for a different conclusion (see, People v. Prahl, 124 AD2d 607, 507 NYS2d 750).

Similarly, in People v. Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 307 NYS2d 857 (1969), the defendant notified the police that he found a dead body. After the police arrived at the scene, they suggested that the defendant and his wife accompany them to the police station because there would be less disturbances there. The defendant was questioned at the police station, in the squad room, by various detectives for over three and a half (3) hours. Thereafter, the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights which he subsequently waived and confessed to the murder.