States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because they were not freely and voluntarily given. We note at the outset that the police Mirandized the defendant and his companion prior to any questioning. Thus, the only statements at issue are the ones made by the defendant after he waived his rights in the kitchen area. A defendant who has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights “may change his mind and choose to waive those rights, so long as it is he who initiates further communication, and so long as his waiver is voluntary and intelligent.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 323 Pa. Super. 207, 211, 476 A.2d 965, 967 (1984) (citing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (other citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Williams, 537 Pa. 1, 640 A.2d 1251 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The testimony elicited at the suppression
holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances holding that in determining the voluntariness of a waiver of miranda rights a court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences holding that trial court committed plain error by not determining the voluntariness of the defendants miranda waiver when the evidence clearly reflected such an issue