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. Lancellotti
  761 F.2d 1363· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant is admissible, even if preceded by a warrantless entry, provided there was an independent source for the warrant. The court also held that stipulated exhibits sufficiently established the nexus between the fir
• Moya v. United States
  745 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government waived the issue of probable cause by failing to raise it timely, and that the prolonged detention of the suspect's luggage violated the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Pena-Cantu
  639 F.2d 1228· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the agents' actions constituted an investigatory seizure without reasonable suspicion, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Haynie
  637 F.2d 227· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the searches and seizures conducted were valid under the Fourth Amendment, and thus the evidence obtained was admissible.
• United States v. Coppage
  635 F.2d 683· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, described the items to be seized with sufficient particularity, and was not tainted by any prior illegal search, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Erasmo Corral-Martinez
  592 F.2d 263· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the heroin evidence was admissible because the search decision predated any potentially tainted statements, and the defendant's post-arrest statement was voluntary. The court also rejected claims regarding severance, prosecutorial comment on silence, and jury
• United States v. Margarito O. Romero
  585 F.2d 391· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-16 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the decision, arguing that suppressed evidence, even if returned to the state, should remain immune from federal seizure while in state hands.
• United States v. Shovea
  580 F.2d 1382· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence derived from an X-ray search of a suitcase against defendants other than the owner, nor in admitting evidence obtained via an electronic tracking device, and that the destruction of investigatory notes did not
• United States v. George
  567 F.2d 643· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Border Patrol lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle, making the subsequent seizure of marijuana illegal.
• Gov't OF the Canal Zone v. Godofredo Gomez
  566 F.2d 1289· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government failed to meet its heavy burden to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel after requesting an attorney, thus the confession was inadmissible.
• United States v. Sor-Lokken
  557 F.2d 755· 10th Cir.· 1977-07-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the consent to search given by a third party with common authority over the premises was valid, and evidence obtained was not tainted by any prior illegal search.
• United States v. Daniels
  549 F.2d 665· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was legally seized and sufficient to support the convictions for importing and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Greene Berry Mullens
  536 F.2d 997· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements and consent to search were sufficiently voluntary to purge the taint of the initial illegal search.
• United States v. Mayes
  524 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence seized was admissible and sufficient to support the conviction, as the discovery of the marijuana cache was not tainted by any illegal detention and the evidence supported an inference of aiding and abetting importation.
• Jetmore v. State
  275 So. 2d 61· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-03-16 ·cited 20×
  David Jetmore appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a written confession obtained after his arrest for breaking and entering. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that even assuming the arrest and vehicle search were illegal, the confession
• United States v. COX
  475 F.2d 837· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a parole warrant, improperly handled and executed contrary to explicit instructions to hold it in abeyance, renders an arrest based upon it invalid, and evidence obtained as a result of such an arrest is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Williams
  434 F.2d 681· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that recording a vehicle's identification number is not a search under the Fourth Amendment, or if it is, it was reasonable under the circumstances.
• Baker v. United States
  430 F.2d 499· D.C. Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of the defense's inquiry into potential taint from illegal eavesdropping, and that the evidence used at trial was derived from independent sources.
• Battaglia v. United States
  383 F.2d 303· 9th Cir.· 1967-10-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that illegal electronic surveillance, even if extensive and including attorney-client communications, does not require automatic dismissal of a prosecution if there is no demonstrable connection between the surveillance and the indictment or trial.
• United States v. Marrese
  336 F.2d 501· 3d Cir.· 1964-09-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's room was illegal because it was not incidental to a lawful arrest and the defendant did not consent, making the seized evidence and subsequent statement inadmissible.
• United States v. Antranik Paroutian
  319 F.2d 661· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government could use information from an informer, even if the informer was unavailable for cross-examination, provided the information was independently obtained and the agents testifying to its receipt were credible.
• LEE v. United States
  232 F.2d 354· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, not incident to a lawful arrest and without a warrant, is inadmissible.
• Pierce v. United States
  197 F.2d 189· D.C. Cir.· 1952-05-15 ·cited 20×
  A confession made during illegal detention is admissible if the detention did not produce the confession, and the detention itself was not inherently coercive.
• Scottie Andrea Jackson v. State
  1 So. 3d 273· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-01-12 ·cited 19×
  Scottie Jackson was convicted of armed burglary and drug paraphernalia possession after police obtained evidence following an allegedly unlawful arrest. The court held that Jackson's arrest for giving false names was unlawful because it occurred during a consensual encounter rath
• United States v. Valdes
  876 F.2d 1554· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 19×
  The court held that warrantless seizures of vehicles used to facilitate drug transactions, based on probable cause, are permissible under 21 U.S.C. § 881(b)(4) and do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Abdon Delgadillo-Velasquez
  856 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-01 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the initial seizure constituted an arrest without probable cause, and subsequent consent to search was tainted by the illegal arrest, requiring suppression of all evidence.
• United States v. Juan Andres Blanco (86-6305)
  844 F.2d 344· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the search of the car, and that even if they had standing, the consent to search was voluntary and not the fruit of an illegal seizure. The evidence was also sufficient to support the convictions.
• In re Grand Jury Proceeding
  842 F.2d 1229· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 19×
  The court held that neither the First Amendment's freedom of expressive association nor the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures required quashing a grand jury subpoena for records held by a third-party brokerage firm, even if the records could
• United States v. Calisto
  838 F.2d 711· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid despite omissions in the affidavit, and the defendant's incriminating statement was admissible as it was not the product of custodial interrogation.
• Simmons v. Braun
  627 F.2d 635· 2d Cir.· 1980-08-14 ·cited 19×
  The exclusionary rule does not apply to extradition hearings, and the evidence presented was sufficient for extraditability.
• United States v. Miller
  608 F.2d 1089· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that moving the vehicle off the highway was reasonable, the discovery of the pistol and rifle was lawful under the plain view doctrine and voluntary disclosure, and that the defendant's identity could be proven through independent sources untainted by the seizure o
• Arenas v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles
  90 So. 3d 828· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-04-27 ·cited 18×
  Ricardo Arenas challenges the suspension of his driver's license for refusing a breath test following a DUI arrest. The court grants his petition for certiorari and remands the case, holding that under the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Hernandez, the lawfulness of his arres
• Drew Gestewitz v. State
  34 So. 3d 832· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-05-26 ·cited 18×
  Drew Gestewitz was convicted of possessing Xanax and escape after police detained him to issue a trespass warning at a bar. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed both convictions, holding that the detention was unlawful because police lacked statutory authority to detain s
• Rouse v. State
  643 So. 2d 696· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-10-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the search and seizure of cocaine was illegal because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for further detention beyond the traffic infraction and the consent to search was not voluntary.
• Parker v. State
  611 So. 2d 1224· Fla.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 18×
  Norman Parker appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief following his conviction for a 1978 murder, sexual battery, robbery, and other felonies, and his death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirms, finding most claims procedurally barred and thos
• Lewis v. State
  597 So. 2d 842· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-03-24 ·cited 18×
  A defendant may assert objective entrapment as a defense to drug trafficking charges when police activity (1) does not target a specific ongoing criminal activity, and (2) is not reasonably tailored to apprehend those involved in such activity. Here, objective entrapment occurred
• United States v. Jordan
  958 F.2d 1085· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that retaining a driver's license during questioning constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of evidence obtained thereafter.
• United States v. Pace
  955 F.2d 270· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a barn physically separate from a home, located in an open field, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's curtilage doctrine, and that the area surrounding such a barn is not protected as a 'business curtilage.' The court also found that the district court'
• Anderson v. State
  576 So. 2d 319· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-01-23 ·cited 18×
  Greg Anderson appeals his convictions for cocaine and marijuana possession, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court reversed, finding the initial police stop was unlawful and that Anderson's abandonment of the cocaine pipe was involuntary as a fruit o
• United States v. Bradley
  922 F.2d 1290· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge holds that the arrest was legal because the indictment, coupled with the District Attorney's endorsement, served as sufficient authority for arrest, and the defendant consented to the officers' entry into his home.
• United States v. Toribio Soto-Ornelas
  863 F.2d 1487· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time of interrogation, INS guidelines do not mandate exclusion of evidence, and the evidence used for conviction was not fruit of the poisonous tree. The court also held that the convicti
• United States v. Carneiro
  861 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the wiretap on Charles McNeil's phone was valid, but the subsequent wiretaps on Ray Harty and Thomas Boyd, and the extension of the Boyd wiretap, were invalid due to insufficient showing of necessity and material misstatements/omissions in the applications. Th
• United States v. Hammock
  860 F.2d 390· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the appellant was not arrested when the detectives searched the abandoned tote bag.
• United States v. Eccles
  850 F.2d 1357· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the defendant's interlocutory appeal from the denial of her motions, and affirmed the district court's partial suppression of statements due to psychological coercion.
• United States v. Feldhacker
  849 F.2d 293· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 is not a separate offense requiring separate indictment, and that witness testimony was admissible under the inevitable discovery rule. The court affirmed convictions but reversed sentences for enhancement.
• United States v. Cherry
  794 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the murder weapon was properly admitted into evidence because the defendant's consent to search was not tainted by his illegal arrest and was voluntarily given, and the discovery of the weapon was not an inadmissible fruit of a Miranda violation.
• United States v. Denney
  771 F.2d 318· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the investigatory detention and protective search of the vehicle's passenger compartment were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent consent to search the seized box was voluntary.
• United States v. Ayres
  725 F.2d 806· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the agents had probable cause to arrest Ayres, and his subsequent statements at the police station were admissible despite the suppression of earlier statements made at the breachway. The court also found no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or jury view
• United States v. Vaughan
  718 F.2d 332· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while agents had the right to briefly detain and frisk Vaughan for weapons, opening his briefcase was an unwarranted search beyond the scope of their authority.
• United States v. $84
  717 F.2d 1090· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 18×