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

• United States v. Ward
  488 F.2d 162· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-05 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the false documents were voluntarily produced and thus admissible, despite the lack of Miranda warnings at the time of production.
• United States v. Ibarra
  955 F.2d 1405· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-05 ·cited 24×
  The court concurred that the impoundment was unreasonable due to investigatory pretext, despite the reasonableness of the impoundment itself under the circumstances.
• Porter v. State
  582 So. 2d 41· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-06-12 ·cited 24×
  Michael Porter was convicted of possession of cocaine after police found drugs during a search incident to his arrest for obstruction. Porter challenged the arrest as unlawful, arguing that his warning to drug dealers that police were approaching was protected speech. The court a
• United States v. Jackson
  918 F.2d 236· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the investigatory stop, search, and seizure were lawful, and that post-arrest statements were voluntary, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Johnston
  876 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 24×
  A search warrant is not invalid if the lawfully obtained information in the affidavit is sufficient to establish probable cause, even if unlawfully obtained information is also present.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  869 F.2d 479· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to stop the van, arrest the occupants, and obtain a search warrant for their residences. Even if a warrantless entry of a residence was unlawful, evidence seized under a subsequent valid warrant is not excludable if the warrant'
• United States v. Dominguez
  835 F.2d 694· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-08 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the defendant's post-arrest 'Felipe' admission and the INS application, nor was the prosecutor's rebuttal summation improper.
• United States v. Guarno
  819 F.2d 28· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's confession and surrender of firearms were voluntary and not obtained in violation of Miranda, as he was not in custody.
• United States v. Carson
  793 F.2d 1141· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 24×
  Evidence obtained from a voluntary consent search is admissible even if preceded by illegal police action, provided the consent is sufficiently distinguishable from the initial illegality.
• United States v. Ruminer
  786 F.2d 381· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that statements made during plea discussions suggesting false leads could be considered during sentencing because the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing, and 18 U.S.C. § 3661 permits broad consideration of information.
• United States v. Dart
  747 F.2d 263· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the mini-warehouse and seizure of weapons violated the Fourth Amendment because neither the exigent circumstances exception nor the plain view doctrine justified the officers' actions.
• United States v. Charles
  738 F.2d 686· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendants were not in custody when they made their statements, thus not requiring Miranda warnings, and that even if they were, the government proved the statements were voluntary. The district court's suppression order is reversed.
• United States v. Brown
  731 F.2d 1491· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-10 ·cited 24×
  The court should affirm the convictions because officers had probable cause for the arrest and search.
• United States v. Mahoney
  712 F.2d 956· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when law enforcement officers act under a reasonable, good-faith belief that their actions are lawful, even if the arrest warrant is later found to be invalid.
• United States v. Herrera
  711 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-19 ·cited 24×
• United States v. Seventy-Three Thousand
  710 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the initial encounter was a consensual police-citizen interaction, not a seizure, and that the claimant voluntarily consented to the search of his travel bag, thus affirming the forfeiture of the currency.
• Martin v. State
  424 So. 2d 994· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-01-12 ·cited 24×
  Kevin Martin appeals his conviction for possession of heroin, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The appellate court reversed, holding that Martin's arrest was unlawful because it was based on an outstanding warrant that had already been served and sh
• United States v. ERB
  596 F.2d 412· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 24×
• United States v. Ceccolini
  542 F.2d 136· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-15 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge argues that the exclusionary rule should not be applied to suppress voluntary witness testimony, even if derived from an initial police illegality, as it hinders truth-finding.
• Moffett v. Louie L. Wainwright
  512 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-30 ·cited 24×
  A confession obtained after an illegal arrest, without proper warnings or opportunity to consult counsel, is tainted and inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree'. Evidence seized during a warrantless search lacking clear and convincing proof of valid consent is also inadmiss
• United States v. Davis
  456 F.2d 1192· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a confession obtained during unlawful detention is not automatically inadmissible if voluntary.
• United States ex rel. Edwin Gockley v. Myers
  450 F.2d 232· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his arrest was illegal or that his statements were coerced, and therefore, he was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Stornini
  443 F.2d 833· 1st Cir.· 1971-06-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the contraband discovered in the appellant's overcoat was admissible because its discovery was not tainted by the arguably illegal strip search of the appellant's person.
• Mills v. Louie Wainwright
  415 F.2d 787· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-10 ·cited 24×
  The Court held that fingerprints obtained during an illegal arrest, even if the arrest was a sham to investigate other crimes for which probable cause might have existed, are inadmissible evidence.
• United States v. Hallman
  365 F.2d 289· 3d Cir.· 1966-08-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence obtained from the defendant was the result of an illegal arrest and should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Close
  349 F.2d 841· 4th Cir.· 1965-08-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the arrest for vagrancy was lawful, making subsequent statements admissible.
• United States v. Lustig
  163 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1947-07-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendants' alleged voluntary disclosure did not grant immunity from prosecution because the investigation had already begun and no formal compromise was reached.
• Stano v. Dugger
  901 F.2d 898· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-01 ·cited 23×
  The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if a detective was part of the prosecution team and acted under the prosecutor's authority for Brady purposes, and for further consideration of a Sixth Amendment claim regarding an informant.
• United States v. Osvaldo Ramon Pino (87-6129)
  855 F.2d 357· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the initial traffic stop was lawful, the subsequent move to the underpass was not an unreasonable seizure, and the search of the pillows was permissible as a search incident to a lawful arrest.
• United States v. Briones-Garza
  680 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the 'drop house' and thus lacked standing to challenge the search. However, the court also held that the district court erred in reimposing the sentence with a new start date without statutory authori
• State v. Thomas
  405 So. 2d 462· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-10-20 ·cited 23×
  Florida police arrested Benjamin Thomas in his home without a warrant based on probable cause for armed burglary-rape, observed evidence at the scene, and obtained a confession. The trial court suppressed both the physical evidence and confession following Payton v. New York, whi
• United States v. Jones
  619 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-19 ·cited 23×
  The court held that evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure, including a pistol and bullets, should have been suppressed and its admission at trial warrants reversal.
• United States v. Moore
  513 F.2d 485· D.C. Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the failure to name a known individual with probable cause in a wiretap application renders the surveillance illegal as to that individual, requiring suppression of evidence. However, if probable cause is lacking, the government is not required to name the ind
• State v. Jackson
  240 So. 2d 88· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-10-20 ·cited 23×
  Florida appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence of marijuana found in an abandoned paper bag. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant's abandonment of the bag while in the officer's view did not constitute an illegal search or seizure, and therefore t
• Lebron v. State
  135 So. 3d 1040· Fla.· 2014-01-30 ·cited 22×
  Jermaine Lebrón appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction and death sentence for the 1995 murder and robbery of Larry Neal Oliver. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the postconviction court's denial of all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during both gu
• Mayhue v. State
  659 So. 2d 417· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-08-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the officer lacked a founded suspicion to stop the defendant, making the subsequent seizure of evidence unconstitutional.
• United States v. Ward
  961 F.2d 1526· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the initial encounter between law enforcement and the defendant on the train constituted an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the evidence discovered and statements made thereafter were tainted and should have been suppressed.
• Towne v. Dugger
  899 F.2d 1104· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a suspect's question to an officer about whether he should get a lawyer constitutes an equivocal request for counsel, requiring further questioning to cease until the request is clarified.
• United States v. George
  883 F.2d 1407· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest of the appellant in his home was unlawful due to a lack of exigent circumstances, and his subsequent consent to search was tainted by this illegality. The court also found that the wife's consent was insufficient to justify the search.
• United States v. Salas
  879 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a Terry frisk based solely on a generalized suspicion of narcotics activity, without specific facts indicating the suspect is armed and dangerous, violates the Fourth Amendment.
• Martin v. State
  521 So. 2d 260· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-03-02 ·cited 22×
  Cheryl Martin appealed her convictions for drug and firearm possession following her no contest plea, challenging the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court agreed that the initial detention was improper under the Fourth Amendment, making the
• United States v. Brone
  792 F.2d 1504· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the affidavit for the initial wiretap was sufficient to meet the necessity requirement, but remanded for further proceedings regarding the extension and spinoff wiretaps.
• State v. Cleo D. LeCROY and Jon M. LeCroy
  461 So. 2d 88· Fla.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question of great public importance regarding whether a "refresher" advice—explaining that a statement is taken to refresh memory for future testimony—renders a Miranda-warned confession legally involuntary. The Court held that such
• Robinson v. Percy
  738 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation under Miranda, and that while subsequent questioning in the interrogation room violated Robinson's Fifth Amendment rights, the admission of those statements was harmless error due to a valid subsequent
• Linn v. Chivatero
  714 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, and that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the taxpayer's claim under the Enochs exception.
• United States v. Finucan
  708 F.2d 838· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence obtained through an illegal search is suppressible as fruit of the poisonous tree unless the government can prove it was obtained independently or would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means. Evidence obtained illegally is admissible fo
• United States v. Moya
  704 F.2d 337· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the temporary detention of the defendant's travel bag was constitutionally permissible based on reasonable suspicion that it contained contraband, and that the initial encounter with law enforcement did not constitute a seizure.
• State v. Delgado-Armenta
  429 So. 2d 328· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-03-01 ·cited 22×
  The State appeals a trial court's suppression of confessions from three defendants charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery. The appellate court reverses the suppression as to two defendants (finding Miranda warnings adequate and waiver knowing and intelligent) but affi
• United States v. Miller
  666 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence derived from an inadmissible diary was admissible if it was sufficiently attenuated from the primary taint or would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means, and that the admission of a co-defendant's confession against a defendant, when n
• United States v. ONE 1979 Mercury Cougar XR-7 VIN: 9H93F720727
  666 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the co-defendant's statement, made eight days after an initial stop, was sufficiently removed from any potential illegality to establish probable cause for forfeiture, and the car had a sufficient nexus to the drug operation.