Florida Law: Must Police Re-Read Miranda Before a Suspect Waives a Prior Invocation?

June 10, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, someone’s waiver of their Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. A suspect’s Miranda rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and a notification of the fact that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. 

But what happens when someone invokes their Miranda rights at first – then attempts to reengage in discussions with law enforcement regarding the crime? Does a suspect need to be read another Miranda warning before any of these statements are admissible against him? This article will explore the answer to this important question.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, before someone can be subjected to custodial interrogation by law enforcement, they must be notified of:

• Their right to remain silent
• Their right to an attorney
• The fact that anything they say can and will be used against them in future legal proceedings. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)

If someone waives their Miranda rights and agrees to be questioned, their waiver must be the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. A waiver must also must be made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. 

If this does not occur, a Miranda waiver is considered invalid. This means any statements made during a custodial interrogation that followed the waiver are inadmissible in a court of law. State v. Herrera, 201 So.3d 192 (Fla 2d. DCA 2016). 

When someone is potentially subject to custodial interrogation, they should invoke their right to remain silent. Moreover, they should immediately contact an experienced and aggressive defense attorney who can provide them competent counsel. If someone waives their Miranda rights and decides to answer questions from law enforcement without an attorney present, this is ill-advised and almost always will do more harm than good for the person being interrogated. 

In some cases, an individual may initially invoke their Miranda rights. But what happens when someone exercises their right to remain silent – then makes incriminating statements (such as a confession) to law enforcement officers without those officers reading Miranda a second time. Are these statements admissible, despite the suspect’s initial invocation of their rights?

The Florida Supreme Court recently addressed this key issue in State v. Penna. State v. Penna, 385 So.3d 595 (Fla. 2024). Penna was arrested, charged with, and convicted of two murders (among other offenses) during a crime spree in South Florida. He was shot by police officers and taken to the hospital for treatment. When officers first went to question him, he invoked his rights and stayed silent.

During Penna’s weeks-long hospital stay, a police officer was stationed near his room. Penna proceeded to have a conversation with the officer in which he divulged various details of the crime spree, and lamented the fact that he committed the charged offenses. 

During their talks, the officer asked Penna what he thought he’d be getting punished for – eliciting specific details about the crime spree without re-Mirandizing Penna. The officer also engaged in speculation regarding the potential punishments Penna could receive at trial. This occurred over one month after Penna was initially arrested, Mirandized, and exercised his rights.

At trial, all of Penna’s inculpatory statements were admitted via testimony from the officer, and he was convicted. On appeal, Penna argued his inculpatory statements were made in response to the officer’s interrogative questioning while Penna was in custody at the hospital. As the officer failed to re-read his Miranda rights, Penna asserted, his statements should not have been used against him. Penna v. State, 344 So.3d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

The 4th DCA agreed, ruling that many of Penna’s incriminating statements were inadmissible. The 4th DCA also reversed the finding of guilt at trial because Penna’s inadmissible statements were erroneously used against him, which contaminated the proceedings. 

But the Florida Supreme Court reversed the 4th DCA’s finding. It held that because Penna voluntarily reinitiated contact with police after already having been read his Miranda rights, a re-reading was not required for his incriminating statements to be admissible against him in court. 

As Penna’s waiver of his prior invocation was found to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, this was sufficient for his inculpatory statements to be used against him. The Florida Supreme Court receded from its 2018 Shelly decision, which had held that if a defendant initiates further conversation with officers after invoking their Miranda rights, they must be reminded of their rights before statements can be used against them. State v. Penna, 385 So.3d 595 (Fla. 2024).

The Florida Supreme Court remanded the proceedings to the 4th DCA. Applying the Florida Supreme Court’s logic, the 4th DCA reversed their previous ruling. Because Penna’s statements were now considered to have been admissible, his conviction was reinstated. 

In sum, a suspect in Florida does not need to be read their Miranda rights again if they knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily initiate contact with the police after initially invoking their rights. Whether a waiver of a prior invocation is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary depends on the totality of the circumstances (as clarified in Penna).

In adopting this rule, the Florida Supreme Court expressly receded from its 2018 decision in Shelly v. State, which had required that suspects be reminded of their earlier invocation before post-initiation statements could be deemed admissible.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving a Miranda waiver that was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share