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. Aldo Ray Wilson
  595 So. 2d 1106· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-03-27 ·cited 4×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order suppressing evidence, ruling that a suspect's abandonment of a gun during a police chase was voluntary and not the result of an unlawful seizure, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in California v. Hodar
• United States v. Spencer
  955 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant's statements obtained after an ambiguous request for counsel, even if suppressed for a Miranda violation, may be admissible if the defendant later made a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel.
• United States v. Romulus
  949 F.2d 713· 4th Cir.· 1991-11-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific findings required by 18 U.S.C.A. § 5032 regarding the juvenile's intellectual development, psychological maturity, and program availability before transferring him for adult prosecution. The court affirmed t
• The United States v. Morin
  949 F.2d 297· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous because the police had probable cause to search the luggage based on the odor of marijuana and visual evidence, and the initial encounter was consensual.
• G.E.C. v. State
  586 So. 2d 1338· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-10-10 ·cited 4×
  G.E.C., a juvenile, appeals his delinquency adjudication for burglary and grand theft, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after his arrest for loitering and prowling. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the officers lac
• Talley v. State
  581 So. 2d 635· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-06-12 ·cited 4×
  A confession obtained shortly after an illegal search and seizure is tainted and must be suppressed, even if Miranda warnings were given.
• United States v. Abreu
  935 F.2d 1130· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trailer, and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of its contents.
• Schaub v. State
  576 So. 2d 1361· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-04-03 ·cited 4×
  Walter Schaub was arrested after police discovered crack cocaine during a pat-down search following a brief detention. The court reversed the denial of his suppression motion, holding that running from a high-crime area at 3 a.m. does not constitute reasonable suspicion to justif
• United States v. Kelly
  913 F.2d 261· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an unlawful search does not automatically revoke prior consent to search, and a factual inquiry is needed to determine if consent was revoked.
• United States v. René Corral-Corral
  899 F.2d 927· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that officers' reliance on a magistrate's probable cause determination was objectively reasonable, even if the affidavit was later found to lack probable cause, thus the evidence is admissible under the good faith exception.
• United States v. Harrell
  894 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 4×
  Statements made during noncustodial interrogations are admissible even if Miranda warnings were not given, and evidence of foreign birth and use of false documents is sufficient to prove a false representation of citizenship.
• United States v. Tobin
  890 F.2d 319· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Tobin lacked standing to challenge the searches of the house, garage, and car, but Ackerson had standing to challenge the search of his home. The court found the search of Ackerson's home was illegal because agents gained entry through a show of official autho
• Medeiros v. Shimoda
  889 F.2d 819· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The dissent argues that the presumption that an initial confession has a coercive effect on subsequent confessions was not rebutted in this case.
• United States v. ANT
  882 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a guilty plea entered in tribal court, which complied with tribal law and the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), should not be suppressed in federal court.
• Vela v. State
  547 So. 2d 242· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress based on the trial court's credibility determination of consent.
• United States v. Barte
  868 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a violation of Miranda's prophylactic procedures, without actual coercion, does not require suppression of derivative evidence.
• United States v. Wong Ching Hing
  867 F.2d 754· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the conditional guilty plea was improperly accepted because it did not comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) and the appellate issues were not clearly defined or dispositive. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is vacated and the case is re
• United States v. Garcia-Jordan
  860 F.2d 159· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 4×
  A statement constituting a new, distinct crime committed during an illegal detention is admissible and not barred by the exclusionary rule.
• United States v. Corral-Franco
  848 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying an incorrect legal test to determine if an arrest occurred, and that the case must be remanded for reconsideration under the proper 'reasonable person' standard.
• State v. Miguelina Rodriguez
  515 So. 2d 330· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-11-10 ·cited 4×
  Florida appeals from a suppression order regarding cocaine hidden in a watermelon seized from defendant Rodriguez at an Amtrak station. The state argues Rodriguez lacks standing to challenge the unlawful search because she denied owning the bag containing the contraband, but the
• United States v. Reyes
  821 F.2d 168· 2d Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the X-ray confirmation of drugs did not violate the appellants' constitutional rights because their detention was based on reasonable suspicion and their consent to the X-rays was valid.
• Reed Wayne Hamilton v. Crispus NIX
  781 F.2d 619· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Iowa Supreme Court's findings regarding the independent source doctrine should be presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the majority improperly disregarded these findings.
• United States v. Bell
  762 F.2d 495· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including the arrestee's known dangerousness, the passenger's companionship, potential identification as a prior accomplice, the crowded environment, and the passenger's non-compliance with commands, created reasonable suspic
• United States v. Orbry Lenny Williams
  737 F.2d 735· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant and that even if the initial entry into the house was unlawful, evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant obtained independently of the entry need not be suppressed.
• United States v. Monroe Butts
  704 F.2d 701· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was inadmissible as the fruit of an illegal arrest because the taint of the unlawful arrest was not purged by any intervening event.
• United States v. Mobley
  699 F.2d 172· 4th Cir.· 1983-01-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the stop, arrest, and search of the vehicle were lawful, based on reasonable suspicion and probable cause derived from specific and articulable facts.
• State v. Morgan
  423 So. 2d 478· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The State appeals the suppression of evidence obtained from searches of Morgan's home conducted on November 3 and 5, 1981. The court affirms the suppression order, finding that both consents to search were invalid because they were tainted by coercive police conduct and the State
• Blackburn v. State
  414 So. 2d 651· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-06-02 ·cited 4×
  Robert Blackburn was charged with armed robbery and moved to suppress evidence (a nylon stocking and pistol) seized during a stop and search. The trial court denied the motion, but Blackburn entered a no-contest plea while preserving his right to appeal. The appellate court rever
• United States v. Gillespie
  650 F.2d 127· 7th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 4×
  Evidence and confession obtained from an illegal search and arrest are inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Shaefer
  637 F.2d 200· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the warrantless seizure of weigh bills during an investigation for short-weighing, using a state statute regulating vehicle weight limits as a pretext, was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Smith
  635 F.2d 1329· 8th Cir.· 1980-11-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the arrest and search were lawful because probable cause existed, and the confession was admissible as it was not a fruit of an illegal arrest. The jury instructions and sentence were also deemed proper.
• United States v. Leonard
  630 F.2d 789· 10th Cir.· 1980-09-19 ·cited 4×
  Evidence found during an inventory search is admissible even if preceded by an unconstitutional interrogation, and a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1) stands regardless of the subsequent reversal of the predicate felony conviction.
• United States v. GAY
  623 F.2d 673· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the seizure of currency during a lawful search incident to arrest was proper, and the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by a pre-indictment photographic identification procedure.
• United States v. Houle
  620 F.2d 164· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that statements made voluntarily by the defendant to cellmates, even after an illegal arrest, were admissible because they were an act of free will sufficient to purge the primary taint of the arrest. The court also held that the defendant waived any claim regardin
• United States ex rel. James Moore v. Lane
  612 F.2d 1046· 7th Cir.· 1980-01-08 ·cited 4×
  Federal habeas corpus relief is barred for Fourth Amendment claims when the state has provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.
• United States v. Garcia
  593 F.2d 77· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the arrest was supported by probable cause and that the search warrant affidavit did not contain material misrepresentations.
• United States v. Cutting
  552 F.2d 761· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant, making the subsequent arrest and search lawful.
• Simmons v. Clemente
  552 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the state had provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment claim, and that the Fifth Amendment claim was barred by Michigan v. Tucker.
• Webb v. Havener
  549 F.2d 1081· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the one-on-one identification of the appellant was totally suggestive and lacked an independent basis.
• United States v. Embry
  546 F.2d 552· 3d Cir.· 1976-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's flight from police, without more, did not provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, and the subsequent discarding of evidence was coerced by the illegal pursuit.
• United States v. Allen
  537 F.2d 1387· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the search of the house, and therefore, the information gained from that search could not be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The denial of counsel's motion to withdraw was also affirmed.
• State v. Hostzclaw
  351 So. 2d 1033· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The State appealed a trial court's order partially granting a criminal defendant's motion to suppress statements made during a murder investigation. The appellate court affirmed the suppression of statements obtained through coercion and drug influence, but reversed suppression o
• United States v. Boyd
  530 F.2d 1269· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the weapons were admissible evidence because their discovery did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, as they were found during a lawful investigatory stop and subsequent arrest for possession of non-taxpaid liquor.
• Stevens v. Honorable Max Wilson
  534 F.2d 867· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The concurring judge agrees with the result but expresses views on the application of Terry v. Ohio and the admissibility of confessions following illegal arrests.
• Logan v. Capps
  525 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without a full development of facts regarding whether the confession was a product of illegal detention.
• Sears v. State
  319 So. 2d 69· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-09-17 ·cited 4×
  William Sears was convicted of breaking and entering based on fingerprint evidence obtained after an arrest for voluntary intoxication. The court reversed, holding that the arrest was illegal because the state could not justify it under any valid Florida statute, requiring suppre
• United States v. Norman
  518 F.2d 1176· 4th Cir.· 1975-06-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' warrantless arrest did not taint the evidence presented at trial, and the government is not bound by the truthfulness of a witness's fabricated story.
• State v. Nittolo
  303 So. 2d 690· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-12-06 ·cited 4×
• Shaffer v. State
  295 So. 2d 677· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-05-22 ·cited 4×
  Paul Shaffer's conviction for intoxication was reversed because his arrest in his own bedroom was a pretextual pretext to search for and seize stolen money. The court held that the warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible under
• United States v. Mantello
  478 F.2d 671· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that wiretap evidence obtained without proper authorization from the Attorney General or a specially designated Assistant Attorney General is inadmissible.