In Miranda v. Arizona the court noted that compulsion is inherent in custodial interrogations and protective devices are necessary to insure that statements made under such circumstances result from free choice. The court required that when first subjected to custodial interrogation, a suspect must be informed of the right to silence and the right to the presence of counsel during questioning. If during questioning the suspect asks to remain silent or for counsel, interrogation must cease. (Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 442-445, 86 S. Ct. at pp. 1611-1613; People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 1229, 1310, 65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 145, 939 P.2d 259; In re Bonnie H. (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 563, 580, 65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513.) Since these requirements arise from the particularly coercive nature of custodial interrogations, when a police interview is either noncustodial or noninterrogative, Miranda does not apply. (People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 612, 648, 286 Cal. Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.)