State v. Jones

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Jones

763 So. 2d 1180, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 491, 2000 WL 60874

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2000

DocketNo. 99-0564

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 1180 (State v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jones, 763 So. 2d 1180, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 491, 2000 WL 60874 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress solely based on its conclusion that he should have been given a second set of Miranda warnings before he was questioned on unrelated cases. This conclusion was erroneous. The failure of law enforcement officials to inform a suspect in custody of the subject matter of the interrogation, i.e., what offenses he or she will be questioned about, does not affect the suspect’s decision to waive the Fifth Amendment privilege in any constitutionally significant manner. See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 576, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987). Thus, where a suspect is brought into custody on one criminal charge and waives his or her Miranda rights, police officials may question the suspect about unrelated crimes without readministering the Miranda rights. Id. at 576, 107 S.Ct. 851; see Herring v. Dugger, 528 So.2d 1176, 1178 (Fla.1988) (stating that “a warning and waiver of rights given following the arrest for a criminal offense is sufficient to cover any later statements to a law enforcement officer concerning other criminal offenses”). Accordingly, the trial [1181]*1181court’s order is reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress solely based on its conclusion that he should have been given a second set of Miranda warnings before he was questioned on unrelated cases. This conclusion was erroneous. The failure of law enforcement officials to inform a suspect in custody of the subject matter of the interrogation, i.e., what offenses he or she will be questioned about, does not affect the suspect’s decision to waive the Fifth Amendment privilege in any constitutionally significant manner. See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 576, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987). Thus, where a suspect is brought into custody on one criminal charge and waives his or her Miranda rights, police officials may question the suspect about unrelated crimes without readministering the Miranda rights. Id. at 576, 107 S.Ct. 851; see Herring v. Dugger, 528 So.2d 1176, 1178 (Fla.1988) (stating that “a warning and waiver of rights given following the arrest for a criminal offense is sufficient to cover any later statements to a law enforcement officer concerning other criminal offenses”). Accordingly, the trial [1181]*1181court’s order is reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 1180, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 491, 2000 WL 60874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack