309 Md. 607, 614-15, 526 A.2d 30, 33-34 (1987). In determining the constitutional adequacy of a suspect’s waiver of the Miranda rights, the totality of the warnings must be examined. See Moran, 475 U.S. at 421, 106 S.Ct. at 1141, 89 L.Ed.2d at 421 (“Only if the ‘totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation’ reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda, rights have been waived.” (citation omitted)); Powell, 130 S.Ct. at 1205, 175 L.Ed.2d at 1019-20 (concluding that, “[i]n combination, the two warnings reasonably conveyed Powell’s right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of the interrogation, but at all times”); Duckworth, 492 U.S. at 205, 109 S.Ct. at 2881, 106 L.Ed.2d at 178 (<HOLDING>); Rush, 403 Md. at 89-90, 939 A.2d at 701-02
holding that because miranda warnings make defendant aware of right to counsel and of consequences of waiving sixth amendment rights defendants waiver of right to counsel after receiving such warnings is valid holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given holding that in determining the voluntariness of a waiver of miranda rights a court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances recognizing that miranda warnings are unnecessary for the investigation of routine traffic offenses