In Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 638-39 (7th Cir. 1996), a suspect was given Miranda warnings shortly after officers arrived at his home to execute a search warrant. In evaluating whether the suspect had been placed in custody before he revealed physical evidence to the police, the court noted that by reading the warnings, the officers had followed a formality of custodial arrest without actually informing the suspect that he was not under arrest. Id. at 642. While not dispositive, this fact provided at least some support for the inference that the defendant was in custody. See: United States v. Erving L., 147 F.3d 1240, 1248 n.5 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 1998); Tukes v. Dugger, 911 F.2d 508, 516 n.10 (11th Cir. 1990).