In Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (U.S. 2003) appellant was implicated in the crime by a co-defendant; several officers went to appellant's home in the early morning hours and were let in by someone other than appellant; the officers awakened appellant; appellant was handcuffed, driven to the police station, and taken to an interview room where the handcuffs were removed; and appellant was advised of his rights under Miranda, after which he gave a written statement. The officers tried, but failed, to get a warrant to question Kaupp; after waking Kaupp, the officer identified himself and said, "we need to go and talk," to which Kaupp replied,"Okay"; Kaupp was then taken to the police station shoeless and dressed only in boxer shorts and a T-shirt; Kaupp was never told he was free to decline to go with the officers; after some ten to fifteen minutes into Kaupp's interrogation, after being told of his brother's confession, Kaupp admitted having some part in the crime; and the State did not allege "any meaningful intervening event" between the illegal arrest and the confession. In Kaupp v. Texas, the officers went into the defendant's home at about 3:00 a.m. without a warrant, woke him by shining a flashlight in his face, identified themselves, and told him they needed to talk. (Id. at p. 628.) The defendant was taken to the station in handcuffs, shoeless, and dressed in boxer shorts and a T-shirt. (Ibid.) The United States Supreme Court held that a 17-year-old boy was taken into custody where he was awakened at three in the morning by police officers; told he needed to go and talk; escorted out of his home in handcuffs, boxer shorts, and without shoes; driven to the crime scene; and finally taken to an interrogation room at the sheriff's office for questioning. Id. at 631. According to the Court, the conduct of the police officers exemplified the probative circumstances that indicate a seizure, even where the person being seized did not attempt to leave, as set forth in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980). These circumstances include "the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." Id. at 554. The court held that the defendant's response of "Okay" when told they needed to talk was "no showing of consent under the circumstances" because he was presented with no option but to go with the officers, and his doing so was nothing more than "'a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.'" (Id. at p. 631.)