Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
When police want to question you, the circumstances determine your constitutional protections. Understanding the difference between custodial interrogation and non-custodial questioning can mean the difference between having your rights protected and unknowingly waiving critical constitutional safeguards.
The distinction determines whether police must inform you of your Miranda rights before questioning begins. Get it wrong, and crucial evidence might be thrown out of court. More importantly for you, understanding these concepts helps you navigate police encounters while protecting your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
This knowledge matters because police interactions occur daily across America. Traffic stops, neighborhood investigations, visits to police stations, and doorstep encounters all involve these principles. Whether you’re a witness, suspect, or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, knowing when constitutional protections apply can fundamentally change how you respond to police questioning.
The stakes are high. Statements made during custodial interrogation without proper Miranda warnings are typically inadmissible in court. But statements made during non-custodial questioning—where no warnings are required—can become powerful prosecution evidence. Understanding which situation you’re in can protect you from self-incrimination while helping you make informed decisions about cooperating with law enforcement.
Core Concepts: Defining the Encounters
Three fundamental concepts shape every police questioning encounter: custodial interrogation, non-custodial questioning, and Miranda rights. Understanding these terms provides the foundation for knowing your rights during any law enforcement interaction.
Custodial Interrogation
Custodial interrogation occurs when law enforcement officers question someone who has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way. The key insight is that formal arrest isn’t required—if you’re not free to leave for any reason, you may be “in custody” for constitutional purposes.
The Supreme Court established this definition in Miranda v. Arizona, recognizing that being cut off from the outside world and subjected to questioning creates inherently compelling pressures that can undermine an individual’s will to resist. These pressures exist whether someone is formally arrested or simply unable to terminate the encounter and leave.
Delaware law expands this definition to include questioning or conduct by officers reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses when reasonable people in the same circumstances would consider themselves in custody. This broader view recognizes that the feeling of being trapped—from an objective perspective—triggers constitutional protections.
The “questioning” component isn’t limited to direct questions. Police actions or words likely to prompt incriminating responses also constitute interrogation. This might include statements like “It would be better if you told us what happened” or discussing evidence in the suspect’s presence to elicit responses.
Non-Custodial Questioning
Non-custodial questioning represents the opposite scenario: informal interviews where individuals are free to leave at any point. These encounters lack the coercive pressures that trigger Miranda requirements because people can terminate them whenever they choose.
These interactions can occur anywhere—police stations (if someone comes voluntarily), streets, homes, or businesses. The defining characteristic isn’t location but freedom. If you genuinely can walk away from the encounter, it’s likely non-custodial.
However, the legal presumption that coercive pressures are absent doesn’t mean these encounters feel comfortable or non-intimidating. Police interactions are inherently unequal power dynamics. The law assumes that because you can leave, you’re not subject to the same compelling pressures that exist in custodial settings.
Miranda Rights
Miranda rights stem from the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. These warnings inform individuals of constitutional protections before custodial interrogation begins:
- You have the right to remain silent
- Anything you say can and will be used against you in court
- You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning
- If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you
These warnings protect Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel. If police conduct custodial interrogation without providing these warnings, any statements made are generally inadmissible as evidence under the exclusionary rule.
People can waive Miranda rights, but the waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. This means understanding what rights you’re giving up and the consequences of that decision.
Why the Distinction Matters: Miranda Applicability
The difference between custodial and non-custodial questioning determines whether police must provide Miranda warnings—a cornerstone protection for Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
The Constitutional Framework
When someone is in custody and subjected to interrogation, the environment creates compelling pressures that can undermine their will to remain silent. The Supreme Court recognized in Miranda that isolation from the outside world, combined with police questioning, can compel people to speak when they would otherwise choose silence.
Miranda warnings serve as constitutional circuit breakers, ensuring people understand their rights before facing these pressures. The warnings themselves don’t create rights—they inform people of constitutional protections that already exist.
Without proper Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation, statements made cannot be used as evidence against defendants in court. This exclusionary rule provides the primary enforcement mechanism for Miranda protections, making the custody determination crucial for both prosecution and defense.
Non-Custodial Encounters: No Warnings Required
During non-custodial questioning, police aren’t required to provide Miranda warnings because the coercive pressures that trigger this requirement are legally presumed absent. If you can walk away from the encounter, the law assumes you’re not subject to the compelling atmosphere of custodial interrogation.
This creates a significant practical difference. Statements made during non-custodial questioning are generally admissible as evidence, provided they’re made voluntarily. The prosecution can use these statements even though you weren’t warned about your right to remain silent or right to counsel.
Legal Battleground
Determining whether encounters are custodial or non-custodial often becomes the central issue in criminal cases. Defense attorneys challenge whether proper Miranda warnings were given during custodial interrogation. Prosecutors argue encounters were non-custodial, making warnings unnecessary.
The stakes are enormous. A statement that could be pivotal in a criminal case might be excluded if obtained during custodial interrogation without proper warnings. Conversely, statements from non-custodial interviews—where no warnings are required—can provide powerful prosecution evidence.
This distinction reflects fundamental differences in power dynamics. When someone’s freedom is significantly restricted, the Constitution imposes higher duties on officers to ensure awareness of rights. When people are free to leave, reduced protections apply based on the assumption that coercive pressures are minimal.
Determining “Custody”: The Objective Test
Whether someone is “in custody” for Miranda purposes doesn’t depend on what police officers think or what individuals being questioned believe. Instead, courts apply an objective test examining how reasonable people in the suspect’s position would perceive the encounter.
The “Reasonable Person” Standard
The Supreme Court established that people are in custody if, under the totality of objective circumstances, reasonable people in their position would feel that freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest.
This objective standard prevents both police manipulation and individual misperception from determining constitutional rights. It doesn’t matter if officers secretly plan to arrest someone but haven’t communicated that intent. It also doesn’t matter if anxious individuals feel trapped when reasonable people would feel free to leave.
The test focuses on external, observable circumstances rather than internal thoughts or intentions. This approach ensures consistent application across different situations and prevents rights from depending on unexpressed police intentions or individual emotional responses.
Totality of the Circumstances
Courts examine all relevant factors of encounters to determine restraint degrees and coercive pressures. No single factor is usually decisive. The goal is assessing whether environments would lead reasonable people to believe they weren’t free to terminate interrogation and leave.
This comprehensive approach acknowledges that people can be “in custody” even without formal arrest notifications. The analysis considers the entire context rather than focusing on any particular element.
Key Factors Indicating Custody
Courts consider various factors when evaluating circumstances, including:
Location of questioning significantly influences custody determinations. Police station interrogations, particularly in closed rooms, are more likely considered custodial than public place questioning. However, location alone isn’t determinative—someone voluntarily coming to a police station and told they’re free to leave might still be in a non-custodial situation.
Duration and nature of questioning affect custody analysis. Prolonged, accusatory, or aggressive questioning contributes to custody findings. Brief, investigatory questions are less likely seen as custodial.
Physical restraints strongly indicate custody. Handcuffs, drawn weapons, or other restraints suggest people aren’t free to leave and are experiencing formal arrest equivalent conditions.
Officer language can indicate custody when statements suggest people aren’t free to leave or are prime suspects. Conversely, explicitly telling someone they’re free to leave and not under arrest points toward non-custodial situations.
Number of officers present can create intimidating, coercive atmospheres that lead reasonable people to believe they can’t leave. Multiple officers suggest more serious encounters with greater restraint on freedom.
Individual’s age became relevant through J.D.B. v. North Carolina, which held that juvenile age is a factor in custody analysis. Reasonable children might feel constrained in situations where reasonable adults might not.
Freedom to leave is often the most important factor. Whether people were explicitly told they could leave or couldn’t leave significantly influences custody determinations.
Encounter initiation matters—whether individuals voluntarily came to police or were summoned affects the analysis.
Complexity and Fact-Specific Analysis
The “totality of circumstances” test makes custody determinations highly fact-specific. Scenarios that might be non-custodial in one context could be custodial in another, depending on how various factors interact.
This nuanced approach aims to balance Miranda protections when coercive police pressures exist without hampering legitimate, non-coercive investigations. The shift from focusing on officers’ subjective intentions (clarified in Stansbury v. California) to purely objective criteria ensures that rights don’t depend on unstated police thoughts but on tangible encounter realities.
Non-Custodial Questioning: When Miranda Doesn’t Apply
Non-custodial questioning occurs when law enforcement interacts with individuals who aren’t “in custody”—meaning they’re free to leave and not significantly deprived of freedom. Understanding these encounters is equally important as understanding custodial interrogation.
Legal Framework and Features
The primary feature of non-custodial questioning is that individuals aren’t under arrest or its functional equivalent. Because encounters aren’t custodial, Miranda warnings aren’t required. Officers can ask investigation-related questions without first advising people of their rights to remain silent or to attorneys.
Statements made during non-custodial questioning are generally admissible in court, provided they’re voluntary and not coerced. The legal framework assumes that because people can end interviews anytime, the inherent coerciveness Miranda addresses in custodial settings is absent.
Common Non-Custodial Scenarios
Several typical law enforcement encounters are generally considered non-custodial:
Brief investigatory stops (Terry stops) based on Terry v. Ohio allow police to briefly detain people if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. During such stops, officers can ask questions to confirm or dispel suspicions. These stops are typically brief and public, and people aren’t considered “in custody” unless stops escalate to formal arrests.
Voluntary interviews occur when individuals willingly agree to speak with police—perhaps coming to police stations voluntarily—and are explicitly informed or reasonably understand they’re free to leave. The environment should be non-coercive, and people should feel departure is permissible.
General on-scene questioning happens when police arrive at incident scenes and ask witnesses or others present informational questions about what occurred. These questions are typically informational rather than targeted at eliciting incriminating responses from detained individuals.
Routine traffic stops are generally not custodial for Miranda purposes, as clarified in Berkemer v. McCarty, even though drivers are temporarily seized. The temporary and public nature of these stops means they lack coercive station-house interrogation atmospheres. Miranda warnings would only be required if traffic stops escalate to points where motorists’ freedom is curtailed to degrees associated with formal arrest.
Spontaneous statements made voluntarily without police prompting aren’t products of interrogation and are admissible even if people were in custody and un-Mirandized.
Constitutional Rights Retained
Even though Miranda warnings aren’t required during non-custodial questioning, individuals retain fundamental constitutional rights:
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent always exists. People can refuse to answer law enforcement questions whether questioning is custodial or non-custodial. In non-custodial settings, the “compulsion” Miranda addresses is deemed absent, but the underlying right against self-incrimination still exists.
Right to leave is definitional in non-custodial encounters. People are free to terminate questioning and leave at any time.
Fourth Amendment right to refuse searches allows people to refuse consent to searches of their persons or property if encounters are non-custodial and police lack warrants or probable cause with exigent circumstances.
Sixth Amendment right to counsel operates differently in non-custodial contexts. While Miranda’s right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation is specific, the broader Sixth Amendment right typically “attaches” after formal criminal proceedings begin. During pre-arrest, non-custodial questioning, there isn’t a constitutional right to government-appointed counsel presence like under Miranda. However, people are always free to consult their own attorneys and can refuse to answer questions until they do so.
Practical Realities
While coercive pressures triggering Miranda are deemed absent in non-custodial settings, law enforcement interactions can still be inherently intimidating. The fact that people can leave doesn’t always mean they feel comfortable or empowered to do so.
Research shows that many people don’t understand they can simply walk away from police encounters, even when they’re legally free to do so. This practical reality underscores the importance of knowing that rights to remain silent and terminate encounters exist even without formal Miranda warnings.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Understanding custodial versus non-custodial interrogation has been shaped by key Supreme Court decisions that continuously refine the balance between individual rights and law enforcement needs.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): The Foundation
This foundational case ruled that statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless police first inform defendants of their constitutional rights. The Court defined custodial interrogation as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
Miranda fundamentally changed police procedures and established critical self-incrimination protections. The Court recognized that without these safeguards, questioning individuals cut off from the outside world could undermine their will to resist and compel them to speak when they would otherwise choose silence.
The decision balanced acknowledgment of legitimate law enforcement needs with protection of fundamental constitutional rights, creating the framework that still governs police questioning today.
Berkemer v. McCarty (1984): Traffic Stops and Miranda
Berkemer addressed two key issues that refined Miranda’s application. First, the Court held that Miranda warnings apply to custodial interrogations for misdemeanor traffic offenses just as they do for felonies—there’s no exception for less serious crimes if people are in custody.
Second, the Court ruled that routine roadside questioning during traffic stops doesn’t constitute “custodial interrogation” for Miranda purposes. The Court reasoned that typical traffic stops are brief, public, and less “police dominated” than station-house interrogations, making them more analogous to non-custodial Terry stops.
However, if traffic stops escalate to points where motorists’ freedom is curtailed to degrees associated with formal arrest, Miranda warnings become necessary. This case illustrates the Court’s effort to draw practical lines, balancing individual protections with everyday policing realities.
Stansbury v. California (1994): Objective Standard
The Court clarified that determining whether individuals are “in custody” for Miranda purposes is an objective inquiry that doesn’t depend on interrogating officers’ subjective, uncommunicated views or individuals’ subjective feelings.
Officers’ beliefs that people are suspects are irrelevant unless those beliefs are somehow conveyed and would affect how reasonable people would perceive their freedom to leave. The focus must be on objective interrogation circumstances and whether they would cause reasonable people to believe they were under formal arrest or similar restraint.
This ruling reinforced the custody test’s objective nature, preventing individual rights from hinging on undisclosed law enforcement thoughts or suspicions.
J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011): Age Matters
The Court ruled that children’s ages are relevant factors in Miranda custody analysis. Courts must consider juveniles’ ages, if known to officers or objectively apparent, when determining whether reasonable people in suspects’ positions would have felt free to leave.
The Court recognized that children’s perceptions of police encounters and their vulnerability to pressure differ from adults, and this reality must be incorporated into the objective “reasonable person” standard. This case marked important acknowledgment of developmental differences in constitutional rights application.
Howes v. Fields (2012): Prison Context
The Court held that imprisonment alone doesn’t automatically mean inmates are “in custody” for Miranda purposes when questioned about matters unrelated to their current incarceration. Even if inmates are taken to private rooms for questioning about outside conduct, this isn’t inherently custodial.
The “totality of circumstances” must still indicate that prisoners’ freedom of movement was restrained to degrees associated with formal arrest, beyond usual prison life constraints. The Court reasoned that prisoners aren’t subject to the same “shock” of arrest as free individuals and may not feel the same pressures to confess to gain release.
Terry v. Ohio (1968): Investigatory Stops
While not directly about custodial interrogation, Terry is crucial for understanding non-custodial encounters. The Court held that police may conduct brief investigatory stops if they have reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that criminal activity is occurring.
During such stops, officers may conduct limited pat-downs for weapons if they have reason to believe people are armed and dangerous. These stops are generally considered non-custodial seizures and don’t typically require Miranda warnings unless detention escalates to formal arrest levels.
Special Protections for Juveniles
The legal system provides special considerations for juveniles during police questioning due to their recognized vulnerabilities. These protections stem from understanding that children and adolescents differ significantly from adults in cognitive abilities, emotional maturity, and susceptibility to pressure.
Increased Vulnerability
Research and legal precedent acknowledge that juveniles are more susceptible to coercion and more likely to provide false confessions during police interrogations compared to adults. Studies indicate that children are three times more likely to falsely confess than adults during custodial interrogation.
This vulnerability arises from factors including desires to please authority figures, difficulty understanding long-term consequences, and lesser capacity to withstand interrogation pressures. Juveniles often have trouble understanding and appreciating Miranda rights due to cognitive and socioemotional immaturity.
Age in Custody Determinations
J.D.B. v. North Carolina directly addressed juvenile vulnerability by ruling that children’s ages must be considered as part of the “totality of circumstances” when determining whether they were “in custody” for Miranda purposes.
This means the objective “reasonable person” standard is modified to a “reasonable child” standard in this context. The Court recognized that children’s perceptions of freedom to leave police encounters differ from adults’, and the law must account for this difference.
Waiver of Rights by Juveniles
While juveniles can waive Fifth Amendment rights, including rights to remain silent and to attorneys, such waivers receive very close court scrutiny. The “totality of circumstances” test determines if waivers were voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Factors considered include juveniles’ ages, experiences, education, backgrounds, intelligence, and their capacity to understand Miranda warnings and waiver consequences.
Parent or guardian presence during waiver processes is a factor courts consider and can help demonstrate voluntariness, but it’s not universally required for valid waivers. However, some legal advocates express concern that parents may not fully understand rights themselves, may be unable to adequately advise children, or may even pressure children to speak to police.
Advocacy and Reform
Advocacy groups like the ACLU actively work to protect juvenile rights during police interrogations. For instance, the ACLU of Maryland opposed legislation that would have allowed law enforcement to conduct custodial interrogation of children based solely on parental consent without children first consulting attorneys.
The ACLU argued such laws would remove indispensable protection layers, increase false confession risks, and undermine the principle that children’s Miranda rights belong to children, not parents. They highlighted that law enforcement often uses confusing tactics and threats during interrogations, which disproportionately affect children.
Prompt Presentment Requirements
Federal law mandates that juveniles taken into custody must be brought before magistrates “forthwith” (immediately). In no event should juveniles be detained for longer than reasonable periods before this presentment. Unreasonable delays in presenting juveniles to magistrates can lead to inadmissibility of any confessions obtained during delays.
Practical Rights Protection Guide
Understanding legal distinctions is important, but knowing how to act during police encounters is crucial. This practical guidance can help you navigate these situations while protecting your constitutional rights.
General Police Encounters
Stay calm and polite. Regardless of circumstances, remain calm and polite. Avoid running, resisting arrest (even if you believe it’s unlawful), or obstructing officers. Keep your hands visible.
Exercise your right to remain silent. You have a constitutional right to remain silent, meaning you generally don’t have to answer questions about where you’re going, where you came from, what you’re doing, or where you live. If you wish to exercise this right, clearly state, “I wish to remain silent.”
Know identification requirements. In some states, you may be required to provide your name if officers ask for identification. During traffic stops, you must provide driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance when requested.
Ask about your freedom. To understand encounter nature, politely ask, “Am I free to leave?” or “Am I being detained?” If officers say yes, you can calmly leave. If they say no, you’re likely being detained or in custody, making it especially important to remember your rights to remain silent and to an attorney.
Refuse consent to searches. You have the right to refuse consent to searches of your person, vehicle, or home. Clearly state, “I do not consent to a search.” While refusing consent may not always stop searches if officers believe they have legal grounds, making your objection known is important for preserving rights in later legal proceedings.
Police at your door. You’re not required to open your door to police or let them into your home unless they have warrants signed by judges that specifically list your address or your name. You can ask them to show warrants by slipping them under doors or holding them up to windows.
If Arrested or Detained
If you’re arrested or otherwise detained in custodial situations:
Invoke your rights immediately and clearly. State: “I wish to remain silent” and “I want a lawyer.”
Don’t answer questions without lawyers. Once you’ve invoked rights to remain silent and requested lawyers, don’t answer further questions, provide explanations, or tell your side of stories until lawyers are present.
Right to appointed counsel. If you cannot afford attorneys, you have rights to have them appointed free of charge before further questioning. Once you request lawyers, police must stop interrogation until lawyers are present, unless you voluntarily reinitiate contact.
Phone calls. In most jurisdictions, if arrested, you have rights to make local phone calls. Police cannot listen to calls if you’re speaking to attorneys.
If You Believe Rights Were Violated
If you believe law enforcement violated your rights:
Document everything. As soon as possible, write down all details you remember: officers’ names, badge numbers, patrol car numbers, agencies, exactly what happened, when and where it occurred, and witnesses’ names and contact information.
Seek medical attention. If injured, seek immediate medical attention and photograph injuries.
File complaints. You can file formal complaints with law enforcement agencies’ internal affairs divisions or civilian complaint boards, often anonymously.
Consult attorneys. Speak with attorneys about incidents and your options.
Important Reminders
Police interactions involve power imbalances and can be inherently intimidating. While the Constitution provides significant rights, these protections aren’t self-executing. To benefit from Miranda protections, you often need to actively and clearly invoke them by stating desires to remain silent or to have attorneys present.
Simply remaining silent after Miranda waivers may not stop questioning, as seen in cases like Berghuis v. Thompkins. Therefore, affirmatively stating “I wish to remain silent” or “I want a lawyer” is crucial.
If rights are violated, seeking redress often depends on having detailed records of what occurred. Practical preparation must empower people not only with rights knowledge but also with understanding that they may need to act to assert them and document events to ensure accountability.
The Role of Recording Interrogations
Electronic recording of police interrogations, particularly custodial interrogations, has become increasingly important in criminal justice reform discussions about transparency and accountability.
Benefits of Recording
Electronic recording offers numerous benefits for all parties:
Objective records create accurate audio-visual documentation of entire interrogation processes. This proves invaluable for resolving disputes about what was said, how Miranda warnings were administered, whether rights were properly waived, and sources of non-public details in confessions.
Deterrent to misconduct occurs when recording device presence can deter interrogators from using coercive, deceptive, or inappropriate questioning tactics.
Protection for suspects against wrongful convictions stemming from false confessions or rights violations.
Protection for officers from false accusations of misconduct or coercion.
Enhanced prosecution success when interrogations are conducted properly and ethically, as recordings can provide strong evidence of voluntary statements.
Truth-finding assistance by providing complete and verifiable interrogation accounts.
Widespread Advocacy
Wide arrays of legal and psychological organizations advocate for mandatory recording of custodial interrogations, especially in serious crime cases. These include the American Bar Association, American Psychological Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Center for Policy Alternatives.
The ACLU argues that recording interrogations should be required as due process matters or through courts’ supervisory powers. Reflecting this growing consensus, numerous states have implemented laws or court rules requiring recording of at least some custodial interrogations.
Effective Recording Policies
Effective recording policies often include specific guidelines:
Complete interrogation coverage from Miranda rights reading through questioning conclusion, not just final confessions.
Neutral camera angles that focus on both suspects and interrogators to provide balanced perspectives.
State-specific requirements that vary by jurisdiction. For example, Delaware law mandates electronic recording of custodial interrogations conducted at detention places, including warnings, rights advice, and any waivers. The law outlines exceptions for exigent circumstances, individual refusal (if documented in writing), confidential informant protection, or equipment failure.
Consent and notification policies vary, with some jurisdictions not requiring consent from individuals being interrogated or notification that recording is occurring.
Historical Context and Reform
The strong push for mandatory interrogation recording addresses long histories of disputed confessions, concerns about coercive interrogation techniques, and well-documented problems of false confessions leading to devastating justice miscarriages.
Historically, unrecorded interrogations often became “swearing contests” in court, where officer versus defendant credibility primarily determined what transpired. Recording offers technological solutions to mitigate these issues by enhancing transparency, fairness, and overall evidence reliability.
Detailed statutes like Delaware’s comprehensive recording law demonstrate legislative acknowledgment of these concerns and movement toward systemic reform. This shift reflects growing recognition that objective records are vital tools for protecting individual rights and bolstering criminal justice process integrity.
The distinction between custodial interrogation and non-custodial questioning represents more than legal technicality—it embodies fundamental American principles about the relationship between individuals and government power. Understanding these concepts empowers citizens to protect their constitutional rights while enabling informed participation in discussions about criminal justice reform.
As technology advances and policing evolves, these principles continue adapting to new circumstances while preserving core constitutional values. Whether you’re personally navigating police encounters or simply seeking to understand how the system works, knowledge of these rights represents an essential component of informed citizenship in a democratic society.
The protections established through Miranda and refined through decades of Supreme Court decisions reflect ongoing American commitments to individual liberty, due process, and the presumption of innocence. Preserving and understanding these rights remains crucial for maintaining the constitutional balance that defines American justice.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
