In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that a person questioned by law enforcement after being “taken into custody” must first be warned that he or she has the right to remain silent, that any statements he or she makes may be used against the person, and that he or she has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. Id. at 444. If police take a suspect into custody and then interrogate the person without informing of such rights, the person's responses cannot be introduced into evidence to establish his or her guilt. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 429 (1984) .The obligation to administer Miranda warnings attaches only when the person questioned is in “‘custody.'” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994) In Miranda jurisprudence, custody is “a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion.” Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499, 508-509 (2012).