With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we conclude that even if it was made pre-Miranda, it was properly admitted. The Florida Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal in this state have routinely held that Miranda does not apply to questions designed to obtain basic booking information. In Holland v. State, 773 So.2d 1065, 1073-74 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holland’s motion to suppress his statements to the police. The facts are as follows. After Holland was arrested, the police obta with Holland was to ascertain his real name, not to speak with him about the case, the trial court did not err in denying Holland’s motion to suppress his statements. See also Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Allred v. State, 622 So.2d 984, 987

A: holding that questions as to whether defendant was in the country legally were not routine booking questions but rather constituted interrogation requiring miranda warnings where defendant faced the charge of being an unlawful alien in possession of a firearm
B: recognizing routine booking question exception observing that the underlying rationale for the exception is that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation because they do not normally elicit incriminating responses and holding that where questions regarding normally routine biographical information are designed to elicit incriminating information the questioning constitutes interrogation subject to the strictures of miranda   citations omitted
C: holding that questions regarding a defendants name address height weight eye color birth date and current age constituted custodial interrogation but fell within the  routine booking question exception which exempts from mirandas coverage questions to secure the biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services but observing that that the exception would not apply to questions posed during the booking process that are designed to elicit incriminatory admissions citations and internal quotation signals omitted
D: holding that routine booking questions do not violate the constitutional protection against self incrimination as they do not constitute interrogation
D.