Major FL Court Throws Out Confession After Police Ignore Right to Silence

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal reversed a defendant’s conviction after he was questioned about an alleged burglary by police even after saying he “didn’t want to talk about it” – and his resulting confession was used against him at his trial.

In Florida and throughout the United States, Miranda rights are a key constitutional protection suspects have before they are subject to custodial interrogation.

Per the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ruling, a suspect must be notified of:

• The right to remain silent 
• The fact that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law
• The right to an attorney, including to have one present during questioning
• The fact that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them

It is a common misconception that someone must be read their Miranda rights any time they have an encounter with law enforcement. However, this is only required before a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation (e.g. after someone is placed in custody, prior to interrogation).

For Miranda reading purposes, custody occurs when law enforcement is restraining a person’s freedom of movement consistent with an actual arrest, and a reasonable person in their position would not feel free to leave. 

Interrogation occurs when officers engage in questioning (or its functional equivalent) that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. For more on custodial interrogation, click here.

If someone is notified of their Miranda rights, the smart next move is to exercise them! Tell law enforcement you will be remaining silent and request an attorney. Say this out loud, as if you just sit there silently, the police can legally keep questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

Exercising your Miranda rights is especially important because law enforcement is specifically trained to elicit confessions from suspects, through the systematic use of techniques that are used to break someone down until they “talk” (even in cases where they may not actually be guilty). 

If a person is read their Miranda rights, they have two options:

• Exercise their rights to remain silent/an attorney (GOOD MOVE!)
• Waive their rights and agree to speak with law enforcement in the absence of counsel 

In the event that a person waives their Miranda rights, any statements they make to officers after the waiver (including confessions) are admissible against them in a court of law. However, this is not automatically the case – because a Miranda waiver must have been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

If someone was read Miranda and waived their rights, they must have understood both the nature of their rights and the potential consequences of giving them up (e.g. use of statements in a court of law).

There are many reasons why someone’s Miranda waiver may have not been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary – which include:

• The suspect was read their Miranda rights in another language (e.g. they spoke Spanish and were Mirandized in English)
• Law enforcement failed to read a suspect their rights altogether
• Law enforcement “minimized Miranda” (e.g. told someone it was “just a formality” or something similar to get them to waive their rights and speak)
• Law enforcement omitted one or more Miranda rights (e.g. did not advise someone of the right to an attorney during questioning)

Another way in which someone’s Miranda rights may be violated is law enforcement failing to respect an equivocal waiver. At the start of interrogation, a suspect may indicate that they will speak with law enforcement – but not about a particular topic. This is known as an “equivocal” (or conditional) Miranda waiver.

If an equivocal waiver occurs, law enforcement must respect this and not ask a suspect questions about the “off-limits” topic. In the event that officers fail to do so and elicit a confession from the suspect after questioning them on an issue they said they did not want to discuss, this constitutes a Miranda violation.

If someone’s Miranda rights are violated (either through an invalid waiver or questioning on an “off-limits” topic that produces a confession), the proper remedy is suppression of the resulting statements. This means a suspect’s incriminating post-Miranda statements cannot be used against them in a court of law. For more, click here.

One case heard by a major Florida court illustrates the danger of police officers failing to respect a defendant’s “equivocal” Miranda waiver. After a burglary suspect was taken into custody and read his rights, he told officers that he did not want to talk about anything relating to the alleged burglary.

When officers ignored this request and questioned him about the burglary, the suspect eventually confessed – and his statements were used against him at trial (leading to a conviction). However, his burglary conviction was reversed on appeal on the grounds that his Miranda rights had been violated.

Let’s take a look at that case – Dixon v. State, 72 So.3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) – and what it means for your Miranda rights in Florida.

KEY CASE: Dixon v. State, 72 So.3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)

In Dixon, the defendant (Dixon) was charged with armed burglary, burglary, grand theft of a firearm, and grand theft. He was convicted on all charges after being arrested for an unrelated theft at Home Depot.

After Dixon was taken into custody but before interrogation began, he was read his Miranda rights. He agreed to speak with law enforcement. Though Dixon initially started to discuss the alleged burglary with officers, he quickly changed his mind before he said anything obviously incriminating. Dixon told officers the following: 

“I tried to explain to my brother when I called him and told him, I called, two people called me at the house and he won’t even call my mother. They were in South Carolina, I said, call mama, coming out the back window. He act like he didn’t even wanna, he ain’t have nothing to say from that point on there, I don’t want to talk about that, period, whatever happened, happened … this conversation here about this house thing is through, I don’t wanna talk about that, period.”

When officers continued to imply Dixon burglarized the home at the center of the case (which belonged to his parents), Dixon again said to the officer that he did not want to speak about it (“Let’s not talk about the house.”).

The officers later went over what Dixon had told them so far in the interrogation – including the brief discussion they had with him about “the house.” Dixon reiterated he did not wish to speak about it anymore (“I don’t want to talk about it no more, you know what I’m saying?”). 

Officers nevertheless continued to question Dixon about the alleged crimes. Dixon eventually confessed to the burglaries he was accused of – listing the items he stole from the house. 

Before trial, Dixon argued that his statements regarding the burglary required suppression. He claimed that officers violated his Miranda rights because they ignored his repeated pleas to stop discussing the alleged burglary of the home. 

However, the trial judge denied Dixon’s motion – finding he waived his Miranda rights freely (e.g. knowing, intelligently, voluntarily). The tape of Dixon’s confession was played for the jury at Dixon’s trial, and he was convicted.

On appeal to Florida’s 4th DCA (Southeast Florida), Dixon claimed that the trial judge erred by admitting his confession. Dixon claimed his statements should’ve been suppressed, as he told the interrogating officers he did not wish to speak anymore about the alleged burglary (yet they kept questioning him).

The 4th DCA agreed – finding that Dixon’s confession was erroneously used against him at trial, requiring reversal of his convictions. The 4th DCA found that Dixon “unequivocally” invoked his right to remain silent on the issue of the burglaries:

“The circumstances of this case demonstrate that the defendant unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent on the issue of the home burglaries. In response to questions about the burglaries, Dixon said: “I don’t want to talk about that”; “[T]his conversation here about this house thing is through, I don’t wanna talk about that, period”; “I don’t want anything to do with this here what you talking about what did I do…. I don’t want to go through that”; “Yeah, I ain’t talking about that there”; “Now enough is enough, you know what I’m saying, enough is enough. Now, I don’t want to talk about that house no more”; “Let’s not talk about the house”; and “I don’t want to talk about it no more.””

“Unlike Owen v. State (Owen I ), 560 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1990), upon which the state relies, this case lacks the repeated, defendant-initiated interrogations, as well as statements that could be construed as refusals to answer only a few specific questions. Unlike the defendant in Owen, Dixon’s declarations referred to questioning about the “house thing” in general, and cannot be construed as responses directed only to the specific subject matter of the question. Further, the things to which Dixon was responding were not insignificant questions, but questions about why he broke into his parents’ house and how he disposed of what was taken, an appeal to his love for his mother, and the detectives’ recitation of Dixon’s story followed by their expression of disbelief.”

Since Dixon’s confession laid “at the heart” of the State’s case against him, the 4th DCA noted that it likely influenced the jury’s verdict – requiring reversal of Dixon’s convictions:

“Here, the heart of the state’s case was Dixon’s confession to both burglaries and thefts. The state could not prove that Dixon committed the first burglary and theft without the confession. And the confession was the strongest evidence connecting Dixon to the second burglary. There is a reasonable possibility that the confession contributed to the convictions. We reverse the convictions and suppress that portion of the interrogation beginning with the exchange set forth in footnote 2.”

In sum, Dixon v. State, 72 So.3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) marks a significant development in Florida case law on the issue of Miranda rights and equivocal Miranda waivers. The 4th DCA held:

• Dixon clearly exercised his right to remain silent on the issue of the alleged burglaries
• Officers did not respect this and instead continued to question him about them
• Dixon’s confession was “fruit of the poisonous tree,” as it was the direct byproduct of a violation of his Miranda rights
• His confession was a key aspect of the State’s case against him at trial
• Since its introduction at trial (to the jury) was not “harmless error,” Dixon’s convictions required reversal

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Dixon v. State, 72 So.3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), as it makes clear that law enforcement must respect both a suspect’s broad assertion of the right to remain silent – and desire to remain silent on specific issues.

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 criminal 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