But while focus of the investigation upon the defendant, standing alone, will not trigger the application of the Miranda rule, Beckwith v. United States, supra, it nevertheless continues to be an important factor in the determination of whether the defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation. State v. Kalai, supra; State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 551 P.2d 828 (1976); Hancock v. Estelle, 558 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1977). Where the police, prior to questioning the individual, are in possession of facts sufficient to effect an arrest without a warrant based on probable cause, it is less likely that the person confronted would be allowed to come and go as he pleases.
The police intended to take the fingerprints of the defendant for "elimination" purposes in their investigation. This factor in and of itself would not create a custodial situation and require the Miranda warnings. Hancock v. Estelle, 558 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1977). The police also intended to discover the ownership of the coat.
[ 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714.] Cf. United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F.2d 601, 603, fn. 1, (8 Cir. 1977); Hancock v. Estelle, 558 F.2d 786 (5 Cir. 1977); Starkey v. Wyrick, 555 F.2d 1352 (8 Cir. 1977), cert. den. 434 U.S. 848, 98 S.Ct. 156, 54 L.Ed.2d 116 (1977); Barfield v. Alabama, 552 F.2d 1114 (5 Cir. 1977); and see Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793, 799 (3 Cir. 1974), cert. den. 419 U.S. 1002, 95 S.Ct. 320, 42 L.Ed. 2d 277 (1974); Iverson v. North Dakota, 480 F.2d 414, 423-424 (8 Cir. 1973), cert. den. 414 U.S. 1044, 94 S.Ct. 549, 38 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973). On the other hand, as we said in State v. Godfrey, 131 N.J. Super. 168, 175 (App.Div. 1974), aff'd 67 N.J. 267 (1975), custody in the Miranda sense does not necessitate a formal arrest, "nor does it require physical restraint in a police station, nor the application of handcuffs, and may occur in a suspect's home or a public place other than a police station."