¶1Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., J. Phillip Krajewski, Sp. Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, New Orleans, La., Michael J. Keane, Dept, of Justice, Crim. Div., Appellate Sec., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant.
¶2Virgil M. Wheeler, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
¶3Before WISDOM, GEWIN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
¶5In this case the government appeals from an order by the district court, entered after a full hearing, granting appellee Planche’s motion to suppress incriminatory statements and admissions1 made by her during an ostensible “routine administrative inspection”2 of her liquor stock.3 Since we are unable to *900conclude that the findings of the district court on the pre-trial motion to suppress are clearly erroneous, they are binding on us4 and we affirm.
¶6The evidence at the hearing revealed that some eight liquor agents,5 pursuant to an informant’s tip, were present in appellee’s establishment for some three to four hours, during which time appellee and her employees were interrogated and her liquor stock was checked and thoroughly examined. In these circumstances the district court did not commit manifest error in concluding that the interrogation of appellee Planche was custodial in nature, that Miranda warnings should have been given, and that, since the Miranda warnings were not given, the incriminating statements should be suppressed.
¶7The government strenuously contends that the district court’s suppression of the statements flies in the face of our recent opinion in United States v. Carollo, 507 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1975) (petition for certiorari pending). However, the district court conscientiously applied the four-pronged test, enunciated by us in Carollo as relevant to the custodial-non-custodial question,6 and determined the issues adversely to the government’s position. This case is, of course, crucially distinguishable factually from Carollo due to the following elements not present in Carollo, but found to be extant here: (1) the presence of eight or nine agents (an unusually large number), (2) the presence of a prior tip by an informant, and (3) the three-four hour length of the “inspection” (an unusually long period of time). The critical determinations in these cases are factual in nature, e. g., Carollo, supra; United States v. Mueller, 510 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1975), and we reiterate that in such cases the granting or denial of a motion to suppress by the trial court will not be disturbed absent clear error.
¶8We have thoroughly reviewed the record and briefs in this case, and have carefully considered the oral argument, but we have determined that the contentions of the government are without merit. It is our conclusion that the facts found by the district court are supported by substantial evidence and that the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are correct.
¶9Affirmed.