response. Everett v. State, 893 So.2d 1278 (Fla.2004). There, a murder suspect invoked his right to counsel. Later, the police sought a consent to take DNA samples from him, to which he agreed. After having been charged with murder, he sought to suppress the DNA samples. The court denied the request, as it concluded that the consent to the DNA samples was not a search reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The right to silence protects only testimonial or communicative acts of a suspect, and the consent itself was neither. Federal courts are in accord that a consent to search is not an interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. See also Timmons v. State, 961 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Everett applies to this case. Here, the questioning of the offic th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1098
holding that during police interrogation right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously holding miranda violation does not invalidate consent to search as fifth amendment only protects testimonial and communicative evidence holding that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under miranda on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored  and upholding officers attempts to resume questioning after defendant invoked right to remain silent because defendant was readvised of his rights sufficient time elapsed between the original invocation and the requestioning and the questioning involved a different crime recognizing that davis was concerned only with the right to counsel and not the right to remain silent holding that consent to search obtained after defendant invoked right to remain silent is not a selfincriminating statement because it is neither testimonial nor communicative