"There was no necessity to warn the defendant of his rights in this case because there was no interrogation. The supreme Court stated, `But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 694. (Emphasis supplied). The requirement of a warning of "rights" is based on knowledge or lack of knowledge of one's rights. It is necessary for a suspect to have a free choice whether he wishes to incriminate himself by his own words, instead of making the state build its case. No free choice can be made, by definition, unless the suspect knows he has the alternatives to speak or not. The Miranda decision explicitly states it is not concerned with voluntary statements. Miranda v. Arizona, supra at 478 [86 S.Ct. 1602; in accord Fritts v. State, Okl.Cr., 443 P.2d 122. Since no choice is compelled when dealing with voluntary statements made in the absence of interrogation, the court need not safeguard the individual's right to remain silent. The individual's right to remain siled is safeguarded by the fact that nothing is attacking the right.

In the present case no interrogation occurred to elicit the confession. The officer informed the defendant he was under arrest. The defendant then confessed to the crime on his own. He was under no compulsion to speak, therefore no necessity existed to warn him of his right to remain silent.

B. Officer Reed warned the defendant twice of his rights.

Even though there was no necessity to warn the defendant of his rights, he was so advised as the following excerpts from the casemade indicates; (CM-21-22):

Q — "Go ahead officer and tell what happened there."

A — "Well, the other officers arrived to assist me as I stated. I checked the building and found it had been broken into, and went back to the car and advised both subjects that they were under arrest for burglary, and I did advise them of their rights."

Q — "What did you tell them?"

A — "Anything they said could be used against them; they had a right to counsel; they could use the telephone, and so forth. Whereupon the defendant started telling me that he had broken into the building, and I advised him — ".

A — "Anyway, I advised him of his rights. He, like I stated, started to tell me that he had broke into the building, he had broken out the window, and it was his idea, and so forth, to break into the place; and I advised him again that anything he said may be used against him in court." * * *

Since the safeguard of warning the defendant of his rights was given though not necessary, the defendant can not complain that he was not warned of his rights. The evidence offered to support the case against the defendant was admissible.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that this assignment of error is wholly without merit."

"It is not clear why the defendant feels the search and seizure was unreasonable, because it is not clear whether a search and seizure took place. The defendant could be contending that the search and seizure of the goods at the police station was unreasonable and unconstitutional. Implicit in the presentation at trial of the fruits of the crime as evidence is the fact that a search and seizure took place at the police station, but there is no allusion to any such search in defendant's brief or in the casemade. The only other possible search and seizure the defendant could be referring to is when the officer looked at the "fruits of the crime" in the back seat of the defendant's car. As to either possibility, the requirements for search and seizure were fulfilled.

The implicit search and seizure at the police station was reasonable. Once an arrest is legally made, an officer may search the person and the immediate surrounding of the person arrested as an incident to the arrest. Phillips v. State, [95] Okl.Cr. [336], 245 P.2d 129 (1952). There were two valid arrests in the present case. The first was the arrest for a traffic offense committed in the presence of Officer Reed. The officer then arrested the defendants for burglary based on probably cause. At 2:30 in the morning, the defendant was speeding in a car full of merchandise out of a driveway of an auto parts store which had a window broken out. Since this arrest for burglary was justified, Booze v. State, Okl.Cr., 390 P.2d 261 (1964), any fruits of the crime seized incident to the arrest was admissible. Forrester v. State, Okl.Cr., 297 P.2d 418 (1956); Richardson v. State, [97] Okl.Cr. [370], 264 P.2d 371 (1953).

Handley v. State, Okl.Cr., 430 P.2d 830 (1967), cited by the defendant for the proposition that one invalid arrest cannot be made for the purpose of searching for evidence of another crime is not in point. In the Handley case, a sheriff's deputy was accompanied by two narcotic agents to arrest the defendant on a warrant for second degree burglary. The defendant had previously been arrested for the same burglary so there was no reason to search his house this second time (the Court of Criminal Appeals assuming that any frutis of the crime would have been search for the first time the defendant was arrested.) It was apparent that the reason for the second burglary arrest was to gain access to defendant's house to search for narcotics, not for any reason connected with the warrant for second degree burglary. The evidence of narcotics found was not admitted on the basis that, "the facts do not constitute a reasonable search incident to the arrest for burglary." Handley v. State, supra at 833. The distinguishing feature between the two cases are that in Handley the search for narcotics was not incident to the arrest that could justify the search, an arrest for burglary. There was no necessity to search for fruits of the burglary arrest, therefore any search was unreasonable. But in the present case the search for fruits of a burglary was incident to the arrest for burglary. It is of no significance in this case that there was no arrest for an ordinance violation before the arrest for the burglary. Since there was a proper arrest for the burglary charge, the search for fruits of this charge was reasonable."

"If the defendant is objecting to the observance of the merchandise in the defendant's car as the unreasonable search and seizure, instead of the later search of the car assumed to have taken place when the defendant was booked, the issue is not one of search and seizure. The officer saw the goods in the car while making the ordinance arrest. The observance of these articles in plain sight was not a search. Like in the liquor cases during prohibition, the observance of whiskey bottles in a defendant's car was "the commission of the offense in the officer's presence", not a search in itself. Franklin v. State, Okl.Cr., 281 P.2d 204 (1955). By analogy the observance of the fruits of a felony is not a search, but information furnishing probable cause coming freely to the officer without a search. State v. Chronister, Okl.Cr., 353 P.2d 493 (1960)."