Windes v. StateWindes v. State
Versions:547 So. 2d 34614 Fla. L. Weekly 19301989 WL 909121989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4631
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,
The remaining points are' without merit and require no discussion.
Affirmed.