property and asked him to show them around to explain the dogs’ conditions. Mr. Grant agreed and escorted the deputies around his property. He refused to allow a search of his house. The deputies thereafter obtained a search warrant and found mistreated dogs and other evidence inside. They arrested Mr. Grant for animal cruelty. Mr. Grant filed an unsuccessful motion to suppress. The trial court concluded that although the State failed to demonstrate that the deputies entered the property lawfully under the plain view doctrine or because of exigent circumstances, the search was lawful because of Mr. Grant’s consent and the inevitable discovery rule. Analysis We agree with the trial court that the plain view doctrine is inapplicable. See State v. Morsman, 394 So.2d 408, 409 (Fla. 1981) (<HOLDING>). We also agree that no exigent circumstances
holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper holding that the smell of marijuana gave the police probable cause to search the vehicle holding that the state failed to prove that a hotel visitor had control over marijuana found in plain view in a hotel room because the state did not provide any evidence other than the defendants mere proximity to the marijuana holding plain view doctrine did not apply to search and seizure of marijuana in back yard where marijuana was not visible until police entered enclosed yard without warrant