Whether the Court of Appeals of Georgia erred in not finding that the objective circumstances required that petitioner Glover was in custody for purposes of Miranda during his entire police interrogation which triggered Miranda warnings?

No question identified. : VAL STUER THE CouRtT OF APPEAIS OF GEARGIA RRED tN Not FINDING THAT THE OBJECTIVE RCUMSTANCES SHOWED THAT PETITIONER LONER AAS TN CUsToDY DURING Wis : : NUIRE POLICE tNTERROGATION val tLe} _ _ _|FRIGCER MIRANDA WARNINGS » WHETHER A Police OFFICER'S DISCLOSURED ro A -NDIVIDUAL-THaT WE’S A “SUSPECT” HAS ANY BEARING CUPon THE QUESTION WETHER THE TNDIVIDUAL +9 tN CUSTODY OR PURPOSES OF MIRANDA, 3 . _ Lis OF PARTIE: ase on +he cover Page, GLOVER NL STATE OF GEORGIA SuPremé Courtof "IGeorgia Case wo'SPHCUGO [Glover \. STATE OF GEORGIA, Courto® AgPeals Of Georgra Case Not A2YAOIH G GLOVER NV. STATE OF GEORGIA, Court of wppeals , OL. eorgia Case WoSAZI BIBS 7 ABLE OF Con VTS OPINIONS BELOW ,..c rece e eceoeet, 2 ) FURISDICTIONesc ce eacoceaceces coos) | ONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRONISIONS N MOINEDsccececere co ccos eoescove 3-5 STATEMENT ©F FACTS «cece cserscecsco coe FT REASONS FoR GRANTING THE WRITe oc co eoolQ O L ION a ecco eo eae ase ues seoeses 34 NEX To APPENDICES PPENDIX A. SuPreme court o£ Georgia orien denying Petition Foc Certiorarf Dated lo-1-7024 PPENDIX GB, Courts of APPeals OF Georgiqg OPinion, Dated APrM IG Dore