would be a problem with this Kehoe/Daniel approach if that is what the trial court relied upon. It is no longer good law. Pursuant to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), even if the Officer planned on stopping appellee’s vehicle for another reason (the Officer was responding to a BOLO in conjunction with a robbery), “[t]he actual subjective motivation of the individual officer ■ involved is irrelevant and should hot factor into an ordinary probable-cause Fourth 'Amendment analysis.” Proctor, 161 So.3d at 411 (citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 813). The Florida Supreme Court has accepted that the Whren objective test overrules the .Kehoe/Daniel approach. Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also 11 Fla. Prac., DUI Handbook § 4:19
holding that probable cause to believe the traffic code had been violated rendered the stop reasonable under the fourth amendment regardless of officers subjective intent holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant holding that florida courts are required to follow whrens objective test and determine only whether probable cause existed for the traffic stop in question holding that the subjective intent of the officer is no longer determinative wjhen applying the objective test generally the only determination to be made is whether probable cause existed for the stop in question and that per whren a violation of traffic law provided sufficient probable cause to make the subsequent search and seizure reasonable holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same