The only substantial question presented on this appeal is the appellants’ contention that their constitutional rights were violated by the admission of the following testimony by the arresting officers:

[Cross-examination of Officer Tate]

“Q Did you advise them of their right as they were placed under arrest?

A I myself personally?

Q Yes.

A No, I did not.”

* * * * *

[Direct-examination of Detective Sa-vaggi]

“A Yes, they were handcuffed in the parking lot, and people were coming, and so to avoid a scene we were taking both into the store room. I was leading Mr. Cook and Mr. Sellers, which were only a couple of feet in front of me, and Officer Tate was behind me, and Detective Zeresk was standing on the scene.

Q Was anything said by Sellers at that time and point?

A Mr. Sellers said that he didn’t know why he did a crazy thing like this.

Mr. Quick: To which we will object, your Honor * * *

The Court: Overruled * * * ”

*469The statement was made voluntarily; therefore, no violation of the appellants’ constitutional rights resulted. See Biglow v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 2Ó5 So.2d 547.

Affirmed.