Without custody, there is no Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), violation. Although police were present and asked some questions during what the state conceded was an interrogation from which the defendant high school student was not free to leave, when the defendant was not placed in a police vehicle during questioning and the investigation was being conducted primarily by a school official, the defendant, if in custody at all, was in custody of the school and was not being detained by the police at that time. State v. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85, 319 Wis. 2d 741, 769 N.W.2d 130, 08-1310. An opposing party may object if a person who originally claimed the privilege against self-incrimination in a civil action seeks to withdraw the privilege and testify. Courts should further the goal of permitting as much testimony as possible to be presented in the civil litigation, despite the assertion of the privilege. Because the privilege is constitutionally based, the detriment to the party asserting it should be no more than is necessary to prevent unfair and unnecessary prejudice to the other side. The general rule is that if the claimant makes a timely request to the court, the court should explore all possible measures to select that means that strikes a fair balance and accommodates both parties. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Morris, 2010 WI App 6, 322 Wis. 2d 766, 779 N.W.2d 19, 08-1647. When a person who asserted the privilege against self-incrimination in a civil proceeding seeks to withdraw the privilege and testify, one of the most important factors in the balancing process is the timing of the withdrawal. Timing can mean everything when determining whether the privilege was invoked primarily to abuse, manipulate, or gain an unfair strategic advantage over opposing parties. The trial court is in a far better position than an appellate court to determine whether prejudice has evolved as a consequence of the belated withdrawal of the invocation. It is eminently fair and reasonable that the trial court have the responsibility to perform the balancing test and make the ultimate decision of whether withdrawal is allowed in the exercise of its discretion. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Morris, 2010 WI App 6, 322 Wis. 2d 766, 779 N.W.2d 19, 08-1647. All custodial interrogation of juveniles must be electronically recorded when feasible under Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105. “Feasible” in this context is not a synonym for “effortless.” Although the police officer may not have been capable of recording the initial conversation while in a squad car, nothing prevented the officer from waiting a short time until recording equipment was available. State v. Dionicia M., 2010 WI App 134, 329 Wis. 2d 524, 791 N.W.2d 236, 09-3109. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, does not allow the admission of partially recorded interrogations of juveniles. A major purpose of the Jerrell C.J. rule is to avoid involuntary, coerced confessions by documenting the circumstances in which a juvenile has been persuaded to give a statement. This purpose is not served by allowing an officer to turn on the recorder only after a juvenile has been convinced to confess. State v. Dionicia M., 2010 WI App 134, 329 Wis. 2d 524, 791 N.W.2d 236, 09-3109. If a probationer refuses to incriminate himself or herself as required by a condition of supervision, the probationer cannot be automatically revoked on that ground. If the probationer refuses despite a grant of immunity, probation may be revoked on that basis. Any incriminating statements the probationer provides under the grant of immunity may be used as justification for revocation, but not used in any criminal proceedings. If a probationer is compelled by way of probation rules to incriminate himself or herself, the resulting statements may not be used in any criminal proceeding. State v. Peebles, 2010 WI App 156, 330 Wis. 2d 243, 792 N.W.2d 212, 09-3111. When both the circuit court and the defendant’s probation agent ordered the defendant to attend sex offender counseling, his supervision rules required that he be truthful, that he submit to lie detector tests, and that he fully cooperate with and successfully complete sex offender counseling, the probation supervision rules documents explicitly informed the defendant he could be revoked for failure to comply with any conditions, and the defendant gave his statements, at least in part, because he was required to take lie detector tests, his statements were compelled for purposes of the 5th amendment. Because the statements were then used against him at sentencing to increase his prison sentence, they were incriminating and should have been excluded. State v. Peebles, 2010 WI App 156, 330 Wis. 2d 243, 792 N.W.2d 212, 09-3111. A criminal defendant’s constitutional right not to testify is a fundamental right that must be waived knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Circuit courts are not required to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to determine whether a defendant is so waiving this right although such a colloquy is recommended as the better practice. Once a defendant properly raises in a postconviction motion the issue of an invalid waiver of the right not to testify, an evidentiary hearing is an appropriate remedy to ensure that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right. State v. Denson, 2011 WI 70, 335 Wis. 2d 681, 799 N.W.2d 831, 09-0694. The state cannot compel a probationer to provide incriminating testimonial evidence, which may be used against the probationer in the noncriminal revocation proceeding, and then use that information again, directly or indirectly, to prosecute the probationer criminally. Compelled statements may not be used in a criminal proceeding, even if the revocation proceeding occurs after the criminal proceeding. State v. Spaeth, 2012 WI 95, 343 Wis. 2d 220, 819 N.W.2d 769, 09-2907. There is a “general on-the-scene” exception to the requirement that police questioning be preceded by Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), warnings. The “on-the-scene” exception applies only when the person being questioned is not in custody or when law enforcement urgently needs information to attend to a potential emergency. State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, 343 Wis. 2d 278, 816 N.W.2d 270, 10-0505. There is no authority for the proposition that an incriminating statement offered by a suspect who has not been Mirandized during the course of a custodial interrogation is admissible simply because that particular statement, viewed in complete isolation, appears “voluntary.” It is of no moment to a Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), analysis that an admission, viewed in a vacuum, appears to have been made voluntarily. State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, 343 Wis. 2d 278, 816 N.W.2d 270, 10-0505. The defendant withdrew the request for an attorney by voluntarily initiating a request to resume questioning after validly invoking the right to counsel, cancelling the invocation of that right by initiating the dialogue in which the defendant asked to continue the interrogation. That before the interrogator returned, the suspect’s attorney on a prior charge arrived at the police station and asked to see the suspect did not change the court’s analysis. State v. Stevens, 2012 WI 97, 343 Wis. 2d 157, 822 N.W.2d 79, 09-2057. The constitutional prohibition against compelled self-incrimination applies only to testimonial or communicative evidence, not to physical tests. The privilege does not bar compulsion to submit to physical testing such as fingerprinting, photographing or measuring, writing or speaking for identification, assuming a stance, or making a particular gesture. State v. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 137, 345 Wis. 2d 326, 825 N.W.2d 521, 12-0064. A defendant’s statements are voluntary if they are the product of a free and unconstrained will, reflecting deliberateness of choice, as opposed to the result of a conspicuously unequal confrontation in which the pressures brought to bear on the defendant by representatives of the state exceeded the defendant’s ability to resist. The determination is made in light of all of the facts surrounding the interview and decided under the totality of the circumstances, balancing the defendant’s relevant personal characteristics, including the defendant’s age, education and intelligence, physical and emotional condition, and prior experience with law enforcement, with the pressures imposed by the police. State v. Lemoine, 2013 WI 5, 345 Wis. 2d 171, 827 N.W.2d 589, 10-2597. Misrepresentations by police do not necessarily make a confession involuntary; rather, they are a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances. In this case, misstatements made by the police were not themselves a constitutional violation when the defendant was not in custody. Because the comments were technically a misrepresentation, they weighed toward a finding of involuntariness, but in the context of the whole interview, they did not suffice to make the defendant’s statements involuntary. State v. Lemoine, 2013 WI 5, 345 Wis. 2d 171, 827 N.W.2d 589, 10-2597. Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), does not apply when custody is “imminent.” While Hambly, 2008 WI 10, held that Miranda was properly invoked before a suspect was interrogated when the suspect had been formally arrested and asked for an attorney, “imminent interrogation” and “imminent custody” are not equally coercive. State v. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, 346 Wis. 2d 523, 828 N.W.2d 552, 10-2809. A defendant’s decision to allow the use of compelled testimony is the same thing as a decision to take the stand. While a personal colloquy must be made if the defense announces that the defendant will not take the stand in the defendant’s own defense, no such personal colloquy is mandated when a defendant wants to take the stand. Failing to conduct a personal colloquy concerning the defendant’s desire to waive immunity was not, in itself, an error. State v. Libecki, 2013 WI App 49, 347 Wis. 2d 511, 830 N.W.2d 271, 12-0663. When an officer watching a monitor of a defendant alone in an interview room witnessed the defendant removing his shoelaces and worried, correctly, that the defendant was going to strangle himself, the statements the defendant made to the rescuing officer in that situation were not custodial interrogation because they fell within the “private safety” exception to Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). This exception provides that, if questioning occurs during an emergency involving the possibility of saving human life, and rescue is the primary motive of the questioner, then no violation of Miranda has occurred. State v. Uhlenberg, 2013 WI App 59, 348 Wis. 2d 44, 831 N.W.2d 799, 12-0827. Under Edwards, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), after a suspect validly invokes the right to counsel, any subsequent waiver is invalid unless an attorney is present or the suspect initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. However, under Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010), the Edwards presumption ends when the suspect has been outside police custody for 14 days. The holding of Shatzer is applicable in Wisconsin cases. State v. Edler, 2013 WI 73, 350 Wis. 2d 1, 833 N.W.2d 564, 11-2916. The test for whether a subject is in custody for purposes of triggering Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), warnings is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable person in the subject’s position would have considered himself or herself to be in custody as set forth in Torkelson, 2007 WI App 272. A government employee who is not a law enforcement officer may still violate Miranda by engaging in questioning designed to elicit incriminating information for law enforcement purposes. The first issue in this case was whether the defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation when the defendant was questioned by correctional officers. State v. Ezell, 2014 WI App 101, 357 Wis. 2d 675, 855 N.W.2d 453, 13-2178. In the absence of actual coercion, the U.S. Constitution does not require suppression of physical evidence obtained as a consequence of unwarned interrogation. The Wisconsin Constitution does require suppression of physical evidence obtained “as a direct result of an intentional violation of Miranda,” but in the absence of coercion or intentional violation of the suspect’s rights, there is no basis for suppressing physical evidence. State v. Ezell, 2014 WI App 101, 357 Wis. 2d 675, 855 N.W.2d 453, 13-2178. When a defendant was compelled to display the defendant’s platinum teeth to the jury, that display was physical evidence that did not have a testimonial aspect sufficient to implicate constitutional protections. The relevant question under the case law is whether the evidence in question expresses, makes use of, reveals, or discloses the contents of the defendant’s mind. Teeth do not do so. The teeth were material to identification, which was a matter at issue. State v. Gonzalez, 2014 WI 124, 359 Wis. 2d 1, 856 N.W.2d 580, 12-1818. The 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination continues after a plea and through sentencing. Accordingly, a circuit court employs an improper factor in sentencing if it actually relies on compelled statements made to a probation agent. The defendant has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the circuit court actually relied on an improper factor in imposing sentence. State v. Alexander, 2015 WI 6, 360 Wis. 2d 292, 858 N.W.2d 662, 13-0843. Although the defendant was only 15 years old when questioned, the defendant had more experience with police and law enforcement than most people that age and demonstrated that he was able not only to develop a story about his non-involvement in the shooting but also to adapt the details of that story to information possessed by the police. That ability to concoct and modify a story on the fly suggested a level of sophistication and adaptability perhaps not accounted for by a standard IQ test. Thus, the defendant’s below-average intellect did not justify a conclusion that the defendant’s mental condition, by itself and apart from its relation to official coercion, disposed of the inquiry into constitutional voluntariness. Rather, it had to be be taken into consideration and weighed against the conduct of the police. State v. Moore, 2015 WI 54, 363 Wis. 2d 376, 864 N.W.2d 827, 13-0127. A probationer is not required to answer questions unless the probationer is offered immunity as described in Evans, 77 Wis. 2d 225 (1977). The Evans court stated: “Had sufficient explanation been given to the defendant with regard to the type of immunity herein granted, then refusal to cooperate would be grounds for revocation.” The immunity described in Evans is both use and derivative use immunity. With use immunity, particular information provided by an individual cannot be used against that individual in criminal proceedings, whereas with derivative use immunity, any evidence subsequently discovered by authorities through direct or indirect utilization of the provided information can not be used against the individual in criminal proceedings. State ex rel. Douglas v. Hayes, 2015 WI App 87, 365 Wis. 2d 497, 872 N.W.2d 152, 14-2977. The issue in this appeal was not whether the probation agent explained details of derivative use immunity to the defendant, but whether the agent explained at all that the defendant was afforded use and derivative use immunity. The statement “I have also been advised that none of this information can be used against me in criminal proceedings” would tell a probationer that none of the particular information the probationer was providing the agent at that time could be used against the probationer in criminal court, but it would not clearly inform the probationer that other information derived from the information directly provided by the probationer also could not be used against the probationer in criminal court. State ex rel. Douglas v. Hayes, 2015 WI App 87, 365 Wis. 2d 497, 872 N.W.2d 152, 14-2977. Requiring the state in all inevitable discovery doctrine cases to prove active pursuit of an alternative line of investigation at the time of a constitutional violation risks exclusion of evidence that the state might demonstrate that it inevitably would have discovered. Therefore, the factors in Schwegler, 170 Wis. 2d 487 (1992), Lopez, 207 Wis. 2d 413 (1996), and Avery, 2011 WI App 124, should be regarded as important indicia of inevitability rather than indispensable elements of proof. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it inevitably would have discovered the evidence sought to be suppressed. State v. Jackson, 2016 WI 56, 369 Wis. 2d 673, 882 N.W.2d 422, 14-2238.