Thomas William Rigterink, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee — Pariente, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Pariente dissents, arguing that the Miranda warnings given to Rigterink violated both the Florida Constitution and the Fifth Amendment because they lacked the required “catch‑all” language, and would reverse and remand; Justice Quince also dissents, contending the warnings are deficient under the Florida Constitution and that federal analysis is unnecessary, while Chief Justice Canady concurs with the majority’s affirmation, holding that a warning sufficient under federal law is automatically sufficient under Florida law.