In State v. Estepp (Nov. 26, 1997), Montgomery App. No. 16279, the Court reiterated the controlling standard for deciding whether an individual is in custody: "The determination whether a custodial interrogation has occurred requires an inquiry into 'how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation.' The ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest." Citing State v. Biros (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 1997 Ohio 204, 678 N.E.2d 891. Neither an officer's subjective intent nor the defendant's subjective belief is relevant to this analysis. State v. Hopfer (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 521, 546, 679 N.E.2d 321. Thus, whether Wilson felt free to leave and whether the police officers considered the interaction an interview rather than an interrogation are irrelevant considerations. In Estepp, supra, the Court noted that the following factors have been used to assess how a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have reacted to the questioning: "1) Where did the questioning take place, i.e. was the defendant comfortable and in a place one would normally feel free to leave? "2) Was the defendant a suspect at the time the questioning began (bearing in mind that Miranda warnings are not required simply because the investigation had focused); "3) Was the defendant's freedom to leave restricted in any way; "4) Was the defendant handcuffed or told he was under arrest; "5) Were threats made during the interrogation; "6) Was the defendant physically intimidated during the questioning; "7) Did the police verbally dominate the interrogation; "8) What was the defendant's purpose for being at the place where the questioning took place; "9) Were neutral parties present at any point during the questioning; "10) Did the police take any action to overpower, trick, or coerce the defendant into providing any statement?"