In State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519, 2006 Ohio 3255, 849 N.E.2d 985, the Court set forth the law regarding custodial interrogations in the context of traffic stops as set forth in Berkemer. The state recognizes in its brief that the Farris Court applied the "appropriate standard" by using the reasonable person test. Because the Court used the Berkemer test, the Court did not set forth a new rule of law. "Where a decision of this Court merely has applied settled principles to a new set of facts, it has been a foregone conclusion that the rule of the later case applies in earlier cases. Conversely, where the Court has declared a rule of criminal procedure to be 'a clear break with the past,' it almost invariably has found the new principle nonretroactive." U.S. v. Johnson, (1982), 457 U.S. 537, 549, 102 S. Ct. 2579, 73 L. Ed. 2d 202. In Farris, the Ohio Supreme Court applied well-settled law to a new set of facts. Farris does not represent a clear break with the Court's past decisions. Consequently, we find that the Court's analysis in Farris is relevant here. The Farris Court concluded, under the facts before it, that the officers' conduct subsequent to the original traffic stop placed the motorist "in custody" for Miranda purposes. Farris at P14. In particular, the Court noted that the officer patted down the motorist, took his car keys, instructed him to sit in the front seat of the cruiser, and informed him that an officer would search his vehicle. Id. The Court concluded that the motorist "was not free to leave the scene - he had no car keys and reasonably believed that he would be detained at least as long as it would take for the officer to search his automobile." Id.