Whether courts must apply the second step of Howes to determine if a person is 'in custody' for Miranda purposes

In Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), the Court established a two-step test for determining whether a suspect is “in custody” for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Under step one, courts consult a list of relevant factors to determine whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. But because “[nJot all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda,” courts then proceed to the second step of determining “whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” Id. at 509. In the dozen years since Howes, nine circuit courts have adopted this twostep test. But the Eighth and Tenth Circuits continue to apply only the first step. And the Ninth Circuit sometimes applies the first step and sometimes considers a completely different test—whether the stop was permissible under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Accordingly, the question presented is: Whether courts must apply the second step of Howes to determine if a person is “in custody” for Miranda purposes. prefix PARTIES,