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

• Gadsden v. State
  498 So. 2d 1339· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was illegal because the officers lacked probable cause, and therefore the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
• Thomas v. State
  494 So. 2d 248· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-09-03 ·cited 8×
  Curtis Lee Thomas appealed his conviction on multiple counts of robbery, sexual battery, and burglary with a firearm. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court properly admitted out-of-court and in-court identification evidence desp
• United States v. Moses
  796 F.2d 281· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government agents lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances.
• United States v. Milford Eugene Slader
  791 F.2d 655· 8th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that any errors in admitting the defendant's statement or witness testimony were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for first-degree murder.
• State v. Augustyn
  490 So. 2d 104· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-05-02 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the trial court was correct in suppressing evidence because the informant's tip lacked sufficient specificity regarding the vehicle description and the informant's trustworthiness was not established.
• State v. Parrish
  470 So. 2d 869· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-06-18 ·cited 8×
  A warrantless arrest for armed robbery violated the Fourth Amendment where the officer's recollection of the suspects' clothing descriptions conflicted with his written report and prior depositions, and the arresting officer received no reliable information that the defendant was
• United States v. Merchant
  760 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search was unlawful because the defendant was not on probation at the time, and the officers' conduct was not objectively reasonable under the good faith exception.
• United States v. Caldwell
  750 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the marijuana evidence was not fruit of the poisonous tree and that the appellant's due process and discovery rights were not violated.
• United States v. Bubis
  744 F.2d 61· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause for the warrantless arrest of Bubis, and consequently, the arrest of Bass and the seizure of evidence were lawful.
• United States v. Wisniewski
  741 F.2d 138· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that cyclohexamine is a Schedule I controlled substance, the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination, and the eyewitness identification was reliable despite a potentially suggestive show-up.
• United States v. Larry Wayne Cassity (81-1565)
  720 F.2d 451· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that warrantless beeper monitoring of chemicals within areas where defendants had a legitimate expectation of privacy violated the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained should be suppressed.
• United States v. Munoz
  701 F.2d 1293· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-22 ·cited 8×
  Roving vehicle stops in National Parks without founded suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from such stops must be suppressed.
• W. J. S. v. State
  409 So. 2d 1209· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-02-18 ·cited 8×
  A minor pled nolo contendere to marijuana possession after his motion to suppress evidence was denied. The court upheld the denial, holding that school officials do not need reasonable suspicion to detain a student on school premises, and that the defendant waived any argument ab
• Clements v. State
  396 So. 2d 217· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-03-18 ·cited 8×
  Two defendants appealed their convictions for kidnapping, sexual battery, and robbery. The appellate court affirmed that evidence from vehicle stops was properly obtained, but reversed because the trial court erroneously admitted weapons (knives and gun) found in a vehicle search
• Montes v. Jenkins
  626 F.2d 584· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's adoption of the petitioner's confession was not a violation of confrontation rights, and the confession itself was voluntary and not the fruit of illegal detention.
• United States v. Sikora
  635 F.2d 1175· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 8×
  Statements made during plea negotiations initiated by the government are inadmissible under Rule 410, and evidence obtained after the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches is inadmissible under Massiah.
• United States v. Blum
  614 F.2d 537· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's initial statement and subsequent confession were inadmissible because they were obtained in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
• United States ex rel. Sam Robert Faulisi & Thomas Vogt v. Thaddeus E. Pinkney
  611 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal courts are precluded from granting habeas corpus relief on Fourth Amendment claims when the state has provided an opportunity for full litigation, and that the Bruton rule does not apply to bench trials.
• United States v. Tucker
  610 F.2d 1007· 2d Cir.· 1979-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prolonged detention of the appellant in a police station holding pen constituted an arrest requiring probable cause, and the confessions obtained were inadmissible as fruit of an unlawful arrest because the government failed to prove probable cause or diss
• United States v. Perez-Castro
  606 F.2d 251· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-31 ·cited 8×
  Statements made by the appellant after an illegal arrest should have been suppressed as they were not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal act.
• United States v. Young
  598 F.2d 296· D.C. Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the totality of circumstances, including association with suspects, presence at the scene, and flight upon the approach of law enforcement, provided probable cause for the arrest.
• United States v. Havens
  592 F.2d 848· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that illegally seized evidence cannot be used for impeachment if the defendant's testimony on direct examination did not open the door to the subject matter.
• Morgan v. Estelle
  588 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-29 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that federal courts cannot grant relief on Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims.
• Raleigh v. State
  365 So. 2d 1048· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-12-27 ·cited 8×
  Kenneth Raleigh was convicted of marijuana possession after police conducted a warrantless intrusion into his vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the officer's search of the car interior and trunk violated the Fourth Amendment becaus
• Alexander v. Smith
  582 F.2d 212· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Carsello
  578 F.2d 199· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the cancelled checks and invoices used to prove failure to report gross income were not suppressible as the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' because the connection to the illegally seized usury records was sufficiently attenuated.
• Foss v. State
  355 So. 2d 225· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the stop of the vehicle was improper, rendering the subsequent seizure of marijuana illegal.
• Schneider v. State
  353 So. 2d 870· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the initial stop of the appellant's vehicle was not based on probable cause or a well-founded suspicion, rendering the subsequent search and seizure unlawful.
• Frederic D. Jennings v. Casscles
  568 F.2d 229· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding the confession voluntary and admissible, and declining to consider a waiver claim not raised below.
• State v. Dixon
  348 So. 2d 333· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The State appeals suppression orders that excluded confessions from Dixon and Godbolt in a murder investigation. The Florida appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding that the defendants did not unequivocally waive their Miranda rights because police continued interrogati
• United States v. Chapman
  549 F.2d 1075· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-09 ·cited 8×
  The court should have granted a second suppression hearing to consider the legality of the rifle seizure and its impact on the oral statement.
• Lewis Fagan, M.D. v. United States
  545 F.2d 1005· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding tainted testimony and speedy trial violations were without merit, affirming the denial of his postconviction relief motion.
• United States v. Jones
  518 F.2d 384· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The seizure of a piece of paper with a name and phone number, and of marked currency from a safe, were unconstitutional as they were not described in the warrant and did not fall under the plain view exception.
• United States v. Barragan-Martinez
  504 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's arrest and subsequent identification were the products of an illegal stop, and therefore the identifications must be suppressed.
• United States v. Hall
  493 F.2d 904· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's initial statement was not made during custodial interrogation and therefore did not require Miranda warnings, making his subsequent confession admissible. The court also held that specific intent to carry out the threat was not a required eleme
• United States v. Chavarria
  493 F.2d 935· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the detention of the appellant at the border was based on reasonable suspicion, making the subsequent identification by a co-conspirator admissible evidence.
• United States v. Stoner
  487 F.2d 651· 6th Cir.· 1973-11-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the initial warrantless search of the motel room was invalid, rendering the subsequent search warrant and its fruits inadmissible.
• United States v. Bohle
  475 F.2d 872· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's proof of sanity was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain its burden and that the defendant's former trial testimony was admissible.
• United States v. Penta
  475 F.2d 92· 1st Cir.· 1973-03-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the use of prior convictions, subsequently overturned due to illegal search and seizure, for general impeachment purposes does not require a new trial, especially when the error is harmless.
• United States ex rel. Gerardo Catena v. Elias
  449 F.2d 40· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes that a state immunity statute providing immunity from the use of compelled testimony and its fruits is constitutionally sufficient under the Fifth Amendment. This immunity is coextensive with the privilege against self-incrimination, and federal cour
• United States ex rel. Murray Dickerson v. Rundle
  430 F.2d 462· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-21 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge argues that the bring-up proceeding, authorized by a judicial officer, constituted a critical stage requiring counsel, making the subsequent confession inadmissible.
• von Utter v. Tulloch
  426 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1970-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search warrant was invalid because the affidavit did not establish probable cause, and the subsequent arrest was tainted by the invalid warrant.
• Ruiz v. Craven
  425 F.2d 235· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's house was unlawful as it was not incident to a lawful arrest and lacked exigent circumstances, and statements made thereafter were fruit of the poisonous tree.
• United States v. Seohnlein
  423 F.2d 1051· 4th Cir.· 1970-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the confession and seized money were admissible because they were obtained after the defendant was lawfully arrested and warned of his rights, and the confession was made promptly after arrest.
• United States v. Scharf
  421 F.2d 1239· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence obtained from the search of the appellant's hotel room was admissible, as the identification and arrest were sufficiently independent of any initial unlawful entry.
• United States v. Hale
  397 F.2d 427· 7th Cir.· 1968-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's second confession was admissible because it was voluntary, made after proper Miranda warnings, and the circumstances of the initial suppressed confession were removed.
• Welton L. Swinney v. United States
  391 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that money order forms found in an automobile were admissible evidence, even if the initial stop of the vehicle was questionable, because the search was incident to lawful arrests for offenses committed in the officer's presence or the evidence was in plain view.
• Chippas v. State
  194 So. 2d 593· Fla.· 1967-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The trial court properly excluded testimony from an accomplice regarding the defendant's prior acquittal on a separate robbery charge, as the correct method to establish such acquittal is through the court record itself, not through cross-examination of a witness.
• United States v. Radford
  361 F.2d 777· 4th Cir.· 1966-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the bail amount was not excessive, the evidence seized from the defendant's automobile was admissible, and the evidence presented was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Redmon v. United States
  355 F.2d 407· 9th Cir.· 1966-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, rendering the subsequent search and seizure of evidence, as well as the defendant's statements, admissible. The court also found that the defendant's statements made after arrest and at the police station were voluntary