Court Opinion

ID: 7526171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 05:02:53.412573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:23:38.248298
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order granting appellees’ motion to suppress 40 bales of marijuana.
A careful review of the record reveals that the search and seizure were amply warranted either on the basis of consent, U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), State v. Custer, 251 So.2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), Grimes v. State, 416 So.2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) or on the basis of probable cause and the plain view doctrine. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968), Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706 (Fla.1964), State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971); Jester v. State, 339 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); State v. Redding, 362 So.2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) and Albo v. State, 379 So.2d 648 (Fla.1980).
Reversed and remanded.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.