Slip Opinion

Office of the Attorney General

SLIP OPINION

CAUTION:

The following is a slip opinion which may or may not reflect the exact contents of the opinion in its final published form.

AG number: 2007	Style: State vs. Jones
Jurisdiction: 4th DCA	Date issued: January 26, 2000

AG HEADNOTE
Miranda warnings
A defendant is not entitled to a second set of Miranda warnings before being questioned on unrelated cases, the 4th DCA said.
The state appealed the trial court's order granting Antonio Jones motion to suppress. Jones argued that he should have been given a second set of Miranda warnings before being questioned on unrelated cases, but the DCA disagreed.
"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. 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," the DCA said.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2000

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v. CASE NO. 99-0564

ANTONIO T. JONES,

Appellee.

Opinion filed January 26, 2000

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ronald J. Rothschild, Judge; L.T. Case No. 98-11756CF10A, 98-13790CF10A, 98-15994CF10A, 98-16403CF10A.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Leslie T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Gene Reibman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

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 (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; 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 court's order is reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL THE DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.