Dixon v. State, 72 So. 3d 171

Dixon was convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a dwelling, grand theft with a firearm, and grand theft arising from two incidents at his parents’ home.
He was interrogated in connection with an unrelated Home Depot theft and tied the Home Depot question to the home burglaries.
Dixon waived Miranda rights and eventually confessed to the home burglaries after initial questioning.
Dixon argued he unequivocally invoked the right to remain silent regarding the home burglaries, but police did not scrupulously honor that invocation.
The trial court denied suppression, ruling his invocation was not unequivocal and that the confession was admissible.
The appellate court reversed, holding Dixon’s invocations were unequivocal and the detectives failed to scrupulously honor them, rendering the confession inadmissible evidence and requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dixon unequivocally invoked the right to remain silent on the home burglaries	Dixon clearly said he did not want to discuss the house,	The invocation was equivocal or limited to other subjects,	Yes, Dixon unequivocally invoked silence on the home burglaries.
Whether Shriner permits subject-specific invocation of the right to remain silent	Shriner allows invoking the right on specific matters	Shriner is outdated and does not permit partial invocation	Shriner permits subject-specific invocations and allows continued questioning on other topics.
Whether the improperly admitted confession was harmless error necessitating reversal	The confession was central to proving both burglaries and theft	Any error was harmless given abundant other evidence	Reversed and a new trial remanded due to lack of scrupulous compliance with the invocation.

Shriner v. State, 386 So.2d 525 (Fla.1980) (defendant may invoke right to silence on specific subjects; police must respect subject-specific invocations)
Pierre v. State, 22 So.3d 759 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (unequivocal invocation may stop questioning on a subject and not others; suppression reversed when not honored)
Mosley v. State, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (scrupulous honoring requires ceasing interrogation after invocation, then resuming after delay and new warnings)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (ambiguous references to counsel do not require cessation of questioning; applicability to partial invocations clarified)
Owen II v. State, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997) (clarifies equivocal invocations; partial invocations may be treated differently depending on context)
Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155 (Fla.2007) (embraces totality‑of‑circumstances approach to determine whether a request to terminate is unequivocal)