duction for 1. Voluntary Nature of Consent: One interrogation concern in this case is the voluntariness of Dalton's agreement to talk with the authorities. Officer Baker withheld the details of the complaint against Dalton from Dalton when he got to Sabrina's residence. Rather, he sidestepped Dalton's inquiry on the issue. A claim that Dalton's permission to enter the residence and talk with the cops was not fully informed might result from this lack of openness. According to the Supreme Court's ruling in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973), permission for a search or seizure must be voluntary. The voluntariness of assent is assessed by taking the whole picture into account. 2. Custodial Interrogation: Another matter is whether Dalton was questioned while in custody without being informed of his Miranda rights. Dalton's freedom of movement was severely curtailed when he was apprehended by Officer Baker and put in the police cruiser. Therefore, it might be claimed that he was in captivity then. In addition, while traveling to the police station, Officer Baker interrogated Dalton by asking him about his identification and past offenses. Any remarks Dalton made might be deemed inadmissible in court if he was, in fact, in custody and had not been informed of his Miranda rights before this interrogation (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)). 3. Right to Counsel: When Officer Baker tried to interrogate Dalton at the police station, he used his right to co