Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine

1,737 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• State v. Burns
  698 So. 2d 1282· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The State appeals the trial court's suppression of cocaine seized during a pat-down search of the defendant following a valid traffic stop and K-9 alert. The appellate court reverses, holding that the pat-down was lawful under Florida's Stop and Frisk Law, the cocaine was properl
• State v. Baldwin
  686 So. 2d 682· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-12-20 ·cited 26×
  The State appeals the trial court's suppression of drug evidence seized from Baldwin's person and vehicle during an encounter with police in a high-crime area. The court holds that the trial court's findings of fact and law were internally inconsistent and must be clarified on re
• Ulysses R. Williams v. State
  640 So. 2d 1206· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-08-03 ·cited 26×
  Ulysses Williams appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana and cocaine, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop and subsequent jail search. The appellate court affirms, finding the traffic stop valid, the deten
• State v. Wilfredo Leyva
  599 So. 2d 691· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The State sought certiorari review of a circuit court's affirmance of a county court order granting a defendant's motion to suppress evidence in a suspended driver's license case. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendan
• United States v. McALPINE
  919 F.2d 1461· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a victim cohabitating with an abuser, who has mutual access and control over the premises, can provide effective consent to a search of the residence, even if the abuser claims a privacy interest.
• United States v. Aureliano Galindo Vasquez
  909 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a canine sniff of a garage from a public alley is not a Fourth Amendment search, and the presence of firearms in a drug-trafficking offense can constitute 'use' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if they provide security and confidence. The court also affirmed the distr
• United States v. Dickie Edward Toler
  901 F.2d 399· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the district court correctly applied the sentencing guidelines by not grouping offenses with different primary victims.
• Freeman v. State
  559 So. 2d 295· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-03-29 ·cited 26×
  Eugene Freeman appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of cocaine found during a search following a police investigatory stop. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop and that Fre
• Reilly v. State
  557 So. 2d 1365· Fla.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 26×
  Michael Reilly was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because a juror with knowledge of a suppressed confession was improperly retained despite defense counsel's motion to excuse for cause.
• United States v. Boden
  854 F.2d 983· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the agents' initial encounter with the defendant was a lawful investigatory detention, not an arrest, and that subsequent searches and seizures were justified based on the defendant's statements and the circumstances.
• Bell v. Lynaugh
  828 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, that his second confession was voluntary and admissible, and that his other claims regarding jury selection, change of venue, publicity during voir dire, speedy trial, and prosecutorial sum
• United States v. Valles-Valencia
  811 F.2d 1232· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence discovered after an initial arrest, even if the arrest was illegal, is admissible if the illegality was not the 'but for' cause of the discovery. It also held that a conspiracy conviction cannot stand if all co-conspirators are acquitted.
• United States v. Rinke
  778 F.2d 581· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and Travel Act violations, but remanded one count for further findings on the 'business enterprise' element. The court also held that the use of notes to refresh memory was permissible and that evidence obtained after illegal surveill
• United States v. Rickus
  737 F.2d 360· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal law governs the admissibility of evidence in federal court, and the trunk search was lawful under federal law, specifically the rule in United States v. Ross.
• United States v. Castellanos
  731 F.2d 979· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine and that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
• United States ex rel. Robert Hudson v. Brierton
  699 F.2d 917· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 26×
  Noncompliance with a state contemporaneous-objection rule bars federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice; the identification was reliable despite suggestive procedures.
• Kayes v. State
  409 So. 2d 1075· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-12-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that meeting a drug smuggling profile alone does not create a well-founded suspicion for an investigatory stop, and only the driver of the vehicle had standing to challenge the search.
• Graham v. State
  406 So. 2d 503· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-03 ·cited 26×
  Graham appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm, raising two issues: the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on specific intent as an element of robbery, and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an illegal warrantless arrest in a motel room.
• United States v. Cassity
  631 F.2d 461· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admissibility of co-conspirator statements was properly handled and that the issue of whether beeper surveillance violated defendants' privacy expectations requires further factual determination.
• United States v. Huberts
  637 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the initial stop and stationhouse interview were justified by reasonable suspicion and voluntary consent, respectively, and that subsequent searches and evidence were admissible. The court affirmed the convictions.
• Hansen v. State
  385 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-06-18 ·cited 26×
  Hansen and Van Nymegen were convicted of marijuana possession after police observed suspected drug bundles during surveillance of their vehicle. The Florida appellate court reversed the convictions, holding that police lacked probable cause to arrest the appellants because the in
• United States v. Gerrold E. Stevens
  612 F.2d 1226· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the co-conspirator's testimony was admissible, the indictment sufficiently stated public offenses, a travel act violation was proven, and the conspiracy and travel act counts were distinct offenses.
• Grimaldi v. United States
  606 F.2d 332· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence seized under a warrant was not tainted by a prior illegal search because the affidavit supporting the warrant contained sufficient information from independent, lawful sources to establish probable cause. The court also found no error in the trial cou
• United States v. Almand
  565 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the stop of the vehicle was unlawful, and the seized marijuana should have been suppressed as evidence.
• United States v. Rockne P. Venema
  563 F.2d 1003· 10th Cir.· 1977-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The use of a trained narcotics detection dog to sniff the air outside a rented storage locker, with the owner's consent, does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, and the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient.
• United States v. Caceres
  545 F.2d 1182· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that authorization for the February 11, 1975 monitoring was validly obtained, but the January 31 and February 6, 1975 monitorings violated IRS procedure without sufficient emergency justification.
• Weed v. Louie L. Wainwright
  325 So. 2d 44· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-12-31 ·cited 26×
  Kenneth Glenn Weed appeals his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, challenging an inventory search of his automobile conducted by police. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held the inventory search was unreasonable and illegal, reve
• Bailey v. State
  295 So. 2d 133· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-05-24 ·cited 26×
  Bailey appealed her conviction for marijuana and cocaine possession, challenging the legality of the search of her vehicle and cosmetic bag. The court reversed the suppression of the plastic bag of marijuana found in plain view, but affirmed the admission of evidence from her cos
• United States ex rel. Lonnie Leston Gibbs v. Zelker
  496 F.2d 991· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies because his federal constitutional claims were not fairly presented to the New York state courts.
• United States v. Levy Alan Kelehar
  470 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's automobile was legal as it was conducted pursuant to standard inventory procedures following a lawful arrest.
• United States v. Brandon
  467 F.2d 1008· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence found in the house search and confessions were admissible because they were not the fruit of the illegal automobile search, but rather derived from independent, legally obtained leads and consent.
• United States v. Fallon
  457 F.2d 15· 10th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the initial investigative stop was lawful, subsequent admissions were not tainted by any potential illegality, and the delay in arraignment did not violate the defendant's rights.
• United States v. Evans
  454 F.2d 813· 8th Cir.· 1972-01-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the live testimony of witnesses or in refusing to produce the presentence report and psychiatric information of a co-defendant.
• United States v. Fuller
  441 F.2d 755· 4th Cir.· 1971-04-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, that the seizure of telephone conversations was within the scope of the warrant, and that the overhearing of a conversation in a public telephone booth did not violate the Fourth Amendmen
• United States v. James
  432 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-02 ·cited 26×
• Cleveland John Donar v. State
  236 So. 2d 145· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-06-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search of the automobile and the evidence obtained were lawful, as the police had probable cause to arrest the appellant.
• French v. State
  198 So. 2d 668· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-05-09 ·cited 26×
  Roosevelt French and Jerry Milbrook appealed their convictions for breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny following a bench trial. The court reversed their convictions because the trial court improperly admitted oral and written confessions that were derived fr
• United States v. Price
  345 F.2d 256· 2d Cir.· 1965-05-17 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge holds that the arrest and search were unlawful, rendering seized evidence inadmissible against the defendant.
• United States v. Zimple
  318 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1963-06-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting the confession into evidence because it was tainted by an unlawful arrest.
• United States v. Glenna
  878 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-20 ·cited 25×
  The court held that handcuffing a suspect during an investigative stop does not automatically convert it into an arrest requiring probable cause, and that requesting consent to search a vehicle does not violate Miranda if the consent itself is not an incriminating statement.
• United States v. Grandstaff
  813 F.2d 1353· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the affidavit, even after redaction of illegally obtained information, provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, and that the defendant Brown lacked standing to challenge the search of the hotel room.
• United States v. Comstock
  805 F.2d 1194· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 25×
  The court held that suppression of evidence was not warranted because the officers acted in good faith reliance on the validity of the search warrant, even though it was issued by a justice of the peace who was not a judge of a court of record as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(a).
• United States v. Whiting
  781 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that an Office of Export Enforcement agent's warrantless search of packages at a post office was an unauthorized border search, and the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply to warrantless searches.
• United States v. Kelly
  749 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Evasio Garcia of conspiracy charges, reversing his conviction. The court affirmed the convictions of the other appellants, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error regarding their other claims.
• United States v. Durant
  730 F.2d 1180· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the evidence seized from the vehicle was admissible, the prosecutor's closing argument was not improper, and the evidence linking the defendant to the getaway car was admissible under the inevitable discovery exception.
• United States v. Torres
  705 F.2d 1287· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 25×
• Engle v. State
  391 So. 2d 245· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-11-26 ·cited 25×
  Kerry Engle and Rex Hall challenged their convictions for carrying concealed firearms, arguing the weapons were discovered through illegal warrantless searches and seizures of their motel room. The appellate court agreed, finding no exception to the warrant requirement applied an
• United States v. Hoffman
  607 F.2d 280· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the warrantless entry of a police officer into a trailer home after a fire was extinguished, for the sole purpose of seizing evidence, was unlawful as there were no exigent circumstances justifying the entry.
• United States v. Williams
  580 F.2d 578· D.C. Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 25×
  The court held that appellants lacked standing to challenge wiretaps based on prior illegal wiretaps because they failed to demonstrate their own privacy interests were affected. The court also held that the applications for the wiretaps sufficiently detailed why other investigat
• United States v. Connolly
  479 F.2d 930· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the warrantless search of Connolly's automobile was justified under the automobile exception due to probable cause and the impracticability of obtaining a warrant, but the warrantless entry into Jeppesen's home was illegal, rendering the evidence found inadmis