History
  • No items yet
midpage
Driggers v. State
538 So. 2d 515
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1989
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to suppress. The record supports the conclusion that the defendant consented to the search of his bag. He not only authorized the officers to look into the bag, but also to “feel around” inside it. One of the officers examined the bag and immediately felt the wrapped packages containing cocaine concealed in the defendant’s sock. The testimony reflects that one end of the package was exposed so that the officer could see the drugs without unwrapping the package. We therefore need not consider defendant’s argument that State v. Wells, 13 F.L.W. 686 (Fla. Dec. 1, 1988), should be applied to closed packages uncovered in a luggage search.

The judgment and sentence are affirmed.

GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Driggers v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Feb 8, 1989
Citation: 538 So. 2d 515
Docket Number: No. 88-1062
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In