Does a temporary investigative detention trigger the obligation of a police officer to give a Miranda under the Miranda rule?

The obligation to give a Miranda advisement arises only "when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation. [Citation.]" (People v. Mosley (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1088.) A temporary investigative detention does not trigger this duty. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 675.) Thus, the Miranda rule is not violated where a police officer temporarily detains a person that he or she reasonably suspects of being involved in criminal activity and "`ask[s] the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

In determining whether the interrogation is custodial, "[t]he totality of the circumstances surrounding an incident must be considered as a whole. [Citations.]" (People v. Pilster (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1403.) "Although no one factor is controlling, the following circumstances should be considered: `(1) [W]hether the suspect has been formally arrested; (2) absent formal arrest, the length of the detention; (3) the location; (4) the ratio of officers to suspects; and (5) the demeanor of the officer, including the nature of questioning.' [Citation.] Additional factors are whether the suspect agreed to the interview and was informed he or she could terminate the questioning, whether police informed the person he or she was considered a witness or suspect, whether there were restrictions on the suspect's freedom of movement during the interview, and whether police officers dominated and controlled the interrogation or were `aggressive, confrontational, and/or accusatory,' whether they pressured the suspect, and whether the suspect was arrested at the conclusion of the interview. [Citation.]" (People v. Pilster, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th, at pp. 1403-1404.)