In State v. DuPont, 659 So. 2d 405 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995), the defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. Prior to his arrest, the defendant voluntarily went to police headquarters for a polygraph examination. The defendant made self-incriminating statements during the examination. After his arrest and prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements made during the polygraph test, asserting that he was not given Miranda warnings immediately prior to the test. The trial court agreed that Miranda warnings were required and therefore suppressed the statements. The State appealed the suppression order. One issue raised by the State in the appeal was that the defendant had been given Miranda warnings twelve hours prior to taking the polygraph test. The State also argued that the polygraph examiner informed the defendant that his Miranda rights still applied. The appellate court rejected the State's arguments and affirmed the trial court's ruling suppressing the polygraph statements. In so doing, the appellate court held that: "We find that the examiner's statement to the defendant, that his Miranda rights still applied, was not a proper Miranda warning. . . . The defendant should have been properly advised of his Miranda rights again before the polygraph exam. The polygraph exam was conducted more than 12 hours after the defendant was first read Miranda. . . . Consequently, it was important that the defendant's Miranda rights be explained to him, including his right to remain silent, before the polygraph exam." (DuPont, 659 So. 2d at 407-408.)