Windes v. State

547 So. 2d 346, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1930, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4631, 1989 WL 90912
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 15, 1989
DocketNo. 88-77
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 547 So. 2d 346 (Windes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Windes v. State, 547 So. 2d 346, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1930, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4631, 1989 WL 90912 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We hold that the positive dog-sniff of a package in the defendant’s ear was constitutionally permissible as the subject of a valid consent given after the defendant was told he had the right to refuse. This fact renders constitutionally inconsequential the apparent illegalities in the detention of the defendant which preceded the consent and search. See State v. Gribeiro, 513 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Husted v. State, 370 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hence, the motion to suppress the cocaine found in the package was properly denied.

The remaining points are' without merit and require no discussion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Paul
638 So. 2d 537 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
547 So. 2d 346, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1930, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4631, 1989 WL 90912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windes-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.