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

• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2002-12-18
  The Court held that the affidavit in support of the search warrant for the defendant's residence contained sufficient probable cause, establishing a nexus between the items sought and the residence. Therefore, the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized was denied.
• State v. Jari Goodwin
  831 So. 2d 1250· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-12-13
  The State appealed a trial court's suppression of post-Miranda statements made by Jari Goodwin during a police interview. The appellate court reversed, holding that an uncoerced pre-Miranda statement does not taint a subsequent post-Miranda statement when proper Miranda warnings
• Erick L. Slaughter v. State
  830 So. 2d 955· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-11-25
  The court held that while the initial detention was constitutional, the subsequent seizure of the appellant's keys was not, requiring suppression of evidence derived from it.
• State v. Zeuxis Fernandez
  826 So. 2d 375· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-07-17
  The State appeals a trial court's suppression of evidence obtained from a search of Fernandez's locksmith business. The appellate court reverses, finding that the officers' initial entry into the business was lawful based on reasonable suspicion of burglary in progress, and that
• State v. W.E.
  814 So. 2d 1232· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-05-03
  The State appealed suppression orders that excluded tape-recorded conversations of minors in a police car. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that individuals in the back seat of a police car have no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore the secret recording
• Caldwell v. State of Del.
  Del.· 2001-09-13
  The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, finding that the officer's actions during the traffic stop exceeded its permissible scope and were not supported by independent justification. The Court affirmed the Su
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2001-06-20
  The court held that the detention and subsequent pat-down search of the defendant were unconstitutional because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or that the defendant was armed and dangerous. Furthermore, the warrantless search of the defendant's vehi
• Horning-Keating v. State
  777 So. 2d 438· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-02-09
  Faith Horning-Keating, an attorney representing workers' compensation claimants, sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order compelling her to answer deposition questions posed by the state in a fraud investigation. The court granted the petition, quashing the compel
• State v. Sakezeles
  778 So. 2d 432· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-02-07
  The court held that the initial warrantless entry into the defendant's apartment was illegal, and subsequent consent to search was tainted by this illegality, thus the evidence seized should be suppressed.
• United States v. Ozuna
  129 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2001-01-23
  The court held that even if evidence was obtained unconstitutionally, it should not be suppressed because the arresting officer acted lawfully under the law of the jurisdiction where the arrest occurred, and suppression would not deter future misconduct.
• Ferland Cenieus v. State
  758 So. 2d 1250· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-05-31
  Appellant was charged with possession of clonazepam after police seized pills from his closed fist during a traffic accident investigation. The trial court upheld the seizure as a valid search incident to arrest for obstruction of justice, but the appellate court reversed, findin
• State v. Demuynck
  779 So. 2d 342· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-01-28
  The court held that while the statements were not made in custody requiring Miranda warnings, they were coerced and thus inadmissible.
• Miller v. State
  751 So. 2d 131· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-01-19
  Gary Miller was convicted of cocaine possession after police discovered crack cocaine in his vehicle during a search following a traffic stop. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the initial traffic stop, making all subseq
• Sherleigh Assocs. LLC v. Windmere-Durable Holdings, Inc.
  956 F. Supp. 2d 755· S.D. Fla.· 1999-03-09
  The court held that a sealed-bid auction process is the most effective method to select class counsel in this securities class action, balancing the lead plaintiff's choice with the court's duty to ensure quality representation at a fair price.
• State v. A.J.
  720 So. 2d 1156· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-11-18
  The Court holds that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) can stipulate to the prior felony conviction element, thereby precluding the government from introducing evidence of the conviction's name and nature.
• State v. Nelson
  717 So. 2d 164· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-09-16
• United States v. Nuyens
  17 F. Supp. 2d 1303· M.D. Fla.· 1998-07-27
  The court held that the defendant's statements made after Miranda warnings were admissible, but the evidence seized from his home should be suppressed due to invalid consent.
• Sanchez v. State
  711 So. 2d 1249· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-05-20
  Jose Sanchez appeals his marijuana possession conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding that the initial vehicle stop was unconstitutional because the officer lacked the requisite suspicion of crimin
• State v. Garcia
  696 So. 2d 1352· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-07-25
  A traffic stop based on an officer's claim that he could not read a temporary tag's expiration date is unlawful when photographic evidence demonstrates the numbers were large, clear, and positioned at the midpoint of the rear window, where an objective standard for the seizure ca
• United States v. Aldana-Roldan
  932 F. Supp. 1455· S.D. Fla.· 1996-05-20
  The court held that while evidence obtained from an unlawful stop is generally inadmissible, a defendant's identity, and evidence of their presence and prior record, are not suppressible as fruits of an unlawful stop or arrest.
• Garcia v. State
  662 So. 2d 1293· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-10-13
  Garcia pleaded no contest to marijuana possession while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The court held that the traffic stop was pretextual because the officer admitted he was looking for a reason to stop Garcia and had only stopped one other v
• United States v. Adams
  845 F. Supp. 1531· M.D. Fla.· 1994-03-15
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendants' motor home, used as a residence, was illegal, and the subsequent searches of storage facilities based on information from that illegal search were also invalid.
• Palmer v. State
  625 So. 2d 1303· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-11-02
  Roger Palmer pleaded nolo contendere to drug possession charges while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding that the initial stop of Palm
• United States v. Rio Hatton Jones
  998 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1993-07-14
• United States v. Navedo-Colon
  996 F.2d 1337· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-30
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant's consent to search his suitcases was voluntary and not coerced, despite a prior potentially unlawful x-ray.
• United States v. Seslar
  996 F.2d 1058· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-22
  The court held that the initial random stop of the defendants' rental truck was unconstitutional because it lacked reasonable suspicion and was not justified under the closely regulated industry doctrine.
• United States v. Spencer
  995 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-27
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, rendering the third-party witness testimony admissible.
• United States v. DePUGH
  993 F.2d 1362· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-26
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from the federal search, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of constructive possession.
• United States v. Thomas
  992 F.2d 201· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-04
  The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the investigative stop, the subsequent search and arrest were lawful, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Levy
  990 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-09
  The court held that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant for solicitation, as his actions did not meet the definition of solicitation under the relevant ordinances.
• United States v. Lopez
  989 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-25
  The court held that the warrantless search of the bathroom for a shotgun was justified by exigent circumstances, specifically the need to recover a dangerous weapon believed to be nearby and accessible to others.
• United States v. Marshall
  986 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-09
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting the gun because the inventory search of the impounded vehicle was not conducted pursuant to standardized police procedures, rendering the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Gomez-Benabe
  985 F.2d 607· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-05
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to challenge the admission of pretrial identification evidence by failing to file a timely motion to suppress before trial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief from this waiver.
• Avery Jones v. State
  613 So. 2d 127· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-02-02
  The court held that the arrest was without probable cause and the evidence found should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Daniel
  982 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-18
  The court held that the temporary seizure of a suspicious package and the subsequent dog-sniff test did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the warrants obtained were valid.
• United States v. Pangburn
  983 F.2d 449· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-13
  The court held that suppression of evidence was not warranted because the first two warrants, while lacking a seven-day notice provision as required by Rule 41, were executed without prejudice or intentional disregard of the rule, and the third warrant was validly issued based on
• United States v. Frank Ogbuh (91-2094) & Samuel Okoro (91-2117)
  982 F.2d 1000· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-08
  The court held that the warrantless search was illegal because the government failed to demonstrate that a warrant could not have been obtained in time to prevent the suspects' escape.
• United States v. Wood
  981 F.2d 536· D.C. Cir.· 1992-12-29
  The court held that because the government failed to argue reasonable suspicion, the encounter was characterized as an arrest requiring probable cause, which was lacking at the time of the seizure.
• United States v. Dharamdeo Babwah and Deodath Maharaj
  972 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-06
  The evidence obtained at 107th Street was properly admitted at trial because the encounter remained consensual.
• United States v. Riley
  968 F.2d 422· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-29
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the residence was justified by exigent circumstances and that the subsequent consent to search was voluntary, thus denying the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  967 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-27
  The court held that the warrantless arrest was justified by exigent circumstances, the informants' statements were not hearsay, and the prosecution did not violate discovery rules, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Tora Bell
  969 F.2d 257· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-14
  The court held that the encounter between the police and the defendant was consensual, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Varela
  968 F.2d 259· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-30
  The exclusionary rule does not bar the use of unlawfully obtained post-arrest statements, suppressed for one crime, to prove a subsequent crime of perjury.
• United States v. Chuck Dwain Templeman
  965 F.2d 617· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-27
  The court held that items previously discovered by lawful means are admissible even if later seized during an illegal search, and that a harsher sentence after retrial is permissible if not motivated by vindictiveness.
• United States v. Howard
  961 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-14
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified law enforcement officers disregarding the "knock and announce" requirement when executing a search warrant.
• United States v. Pena
  961 F.2d 333· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-07
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a suppression hearing without adequately developing the record on whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area of the vehicle and whether probable cause existed for the search and arrest
• United States v. Miner
  956 F.2d 397· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-13
  The court held that the troopers' search of the vandalized vehicle was permissible under community caretaking functions and did not violate Miner's reasonable expectation of privacy.
• United States v. Lawson
  782 F. Supp. 1546· S.D. Fla.· 1992-02-05
  A passenger has standing to challenge the legality of a vehicle's traffic stop, and evidence obtained from such a stop may be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
• Johnson v. Bart Ross
  955 F.2d 178· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-28
  Any error in admitting clothing identification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, making it unnecessary to decide the constitutional issue of taint.
• United States v. Sanders
  954 F.2d 227· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-21
  The court held that the arrest was illegal because the traffic offenses cited required operation on a public highway, which was not proven. Therefore, the confession obtained after the arrest must be re-evaluated for admissibility.