Opinion
No. 87,486
June 26, 1997 Rehearing Denied September 11, 1997.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions Second District — Case No. 94-00091 (Pasco County).
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, and John M. Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Petitioner.
A. R. Mander, III of Greenfelder, Mander, Hanson, Murphy Dwyer, Dade City, Florida, for Respondent.
We review Kipp v. State, 668 So.2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in State v. Owen, 654 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
In State v. Owen, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S246 (Fla. May 8, 1997), we held that police in Florida need not ask clarifying questions if a defendant who has received proper Miranda warnings makes only an equivocal or ambiguous request to terminate an interrogation after having validly waived his or her Miranda rights. The court below held that even an equivocal request to terminate interrogation required the police to either seek clarification or cease the interrogation. Accordingly, we quash the decision in Kipp. However, because there has been no determination of whether Kipp's invocation of his right to remain silent was equivocal or unequivocal, see Kipp, 668 So.2d at 216 n.2,we remand the case for further proceedings.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, C.J., dissents.
ANSTEAD, J., recused.