Suppression of appellant’s confession to murder was not required where appellant was not “seized” before he made the incriminating statements. Appellant called police and reported that someone had broken into his house and there was “blood all over.” Officers asked if he would mind sitting in the patrol car while they investigated, which he willingly did. They then asked him to come to the police station with them to talk, which he also willingly did. Appellant was neither handcuffed nor under arrest. He was read his Miranda rights, and signed a waiver of them. Officers testified that they were suspicious of appellant and “turned up” their interview techniques to see what might turn up, but did not have probable cause to arrest. Only when appellant confessed to hitting the victim in the head with a hammer, did officers place him under arrest. Under the totality of circumstances, appellant was not seized before he confessed, and the confession was therefore not the fruit of an unlawful arrest. The trial court therefore properly denied appellant’s Penal Code section 1538.5 motion.