What is the test for a motion to suppress evidence based upon a Miranda violation?

"In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence based upon a Miranda violation, '"we accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence. We independently determine from the undisputed facts and the facts properly found by the trial court whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Bejasa (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 26, 35.)

"Miranda advisements are only required when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation. [Citation.] A suspect is in custody when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would feel that his 'freedom of action is curtailed to a "degree associated with formal arrest." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Bejasa, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 35.) California courts have identified a number of facts relevant to determining whether a person was in custody. "While no one factor is conclusive, relevant factors include: '(1) [W]hether the suspect has been formally arrested;

Page 11