midpage

Windes v. StateWindes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida
Aug 15, 1989
No. 88-77
Versions:547 So. 2d 346
14 Fla. L. Weekly 1930
1989 WL 90912
1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4631
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.

Case Details

Case Name: Windes v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Aug 15, 1989
Citations: 547 So. 2d 346; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1930; 1989 WL 90912; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4631; No. 88-77
Docket Number: No. 88-77
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
Log In