With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 460 U.S. at 501-02, 103 S.Ct. 1319 (plurality opinion). The Court affirmed the Third District Court of Appeal’s “conclusion that Royer was being illegally detained when he consented to the search of his luggage, [and] agree[d] that the consent was tainted by the illegality and was ineffective to justify the search.” Id. at 507-08, 103 S.Ct. 1319 (plurality opinion); see also Reynolds v. State, 592 So.2d 1082, 1086 (Fla.1992) (finding a handcuffed defendant’s consent to search his person involuntary, even though he was informed that he could refuse to consent, because he had been confronted by three officers and told he was under arrest even though there was no probable cause, and he was then handcuffed and frisked). On the other hand, in United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 4 d Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). In Conde v. State, 860 So.2d 930 (Fla.2003),

A: holding that the defendant knew of his accomplices gun and benefitted from its presence for protection
B: holding that the district court eired in applying the firearm enhancement where the government presented no evidence that the defendant possessed the gun or knew that the gun was located in the bottom of his codefendants backpack
C: holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun
D: holding a consent voluntary when a defendant who had been warned of his rights and knew police were investigating murders turned his gun over to a policeman who suggested that he could sell the gun for the defendant
D.