What is the test for denying a motion to suppress under the Miranda Rule?

We review de novo a denial of a motion to suppress. People of the Territory of Guam v. Palomo, 35 F.3d 368, 375 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 750 (1995). We review for clear error the district court's factual findings as to whether a defendant was "in custody" for purposes of Miranda. Id. When, as here, the district court did not make factual findings, " '[we] will uphold the denial of the motion to suppress if there is a reasonable view of the evidence that will sustain it.' " Palomo, 35 F.3d at 375 (quoting United States v. Rabe, 848 F.2d 994, 997 (9th Cir.1988).

" 'Miranda rights' must be given when a suspect is subjected to 'custodial interrogation' which is defined as 'questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action....' " United States v. Eide, 875 F.2d 1429, 1433 (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)). We use an objective standard to determine the issue of custody, asking "whether a reasonable person in the interviewee's position would consider himself or herself free to leave." Palomo, 35 F.3d at 375.