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. Lucelly Abadia
  949 F.2d 956· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-19
  The court held that the pre-arrest detention of the appellant was supported by probable cause, thus it was not a de facto arrest violating the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Watson
  950 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-24
  The court held that even if a search was illegal, evidence derived from it is admissible if sufficiently attenuated from the illegality, such as when the information merely facilitates a separate, independent investigation.
• United States v. Russell
  919 F.2d 795· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-26
  The court held that the district court erred in suppressing evidence of firearms, as credibility determinations and factual issues intertwined with guilt should be decided at trial, not pretrial.
• United States v. Gertie Crismon
  905 F.2d 966· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-18
  The court held that the defendant waived her right to challenge the legality of the search and seizure by failing to file a timely motion to suppress evidence, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the issue on appeal.
• State v. Brown
  558 So. 2d 1054· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-03-09
  Florida appeals from pretrial orders suppressing Barry Brown's confessions and a firearm discovered in his bedroom. The appellate court reverses, finding no evidence of coercion or improper police conduct in obtaining Brown's Miranda-waived statements or in the mother's consent t
• United States v. Moreno
  891 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-08
  The court held that the district court must hold a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the defendant's second confession, as the circumstances surrounding it may have involved official coercion.
• Oliva v. State
  553 So. 2d 1284· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-05
  Mario Oliva appeals his cocaine possession conviction following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court affirmed, finding that the initial police contact was consensual, the arrest on outstanding warrants was valid, and the subsequent search incident to arrest wa
• London v. State
  540 So. 2d 211· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-03-22
  Michael London appeals his convictions for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery after entering no-contest pleas following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding that police lacked probable cause to arrest London bas
• State v. Lapinski
  535 So. 2d 716· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-01-05
  Florida appeals the suppression of cocaine evidence in a drug case where the defendant discarded the cocaine during a police stop after purchasing it with money provided by an undercover agent. The court reverses the suppression, holding that the defendant voluntarily abandoned t
• Neptali Bautista Lobo v. State
  546 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-11-08
• Laurence Hurd v. Eloy Mondragon
  851 F.2d 324· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-07
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the habeas petition and in dismissing the petition with prejudice, as the withdrawal motion was untimely and addressed to the court's discretion.
• United States v. Jones
  846 F.2d 357· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-04
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's finding that the defendant's consent to search was voluntary, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion that the district court erred.
• Van Welch v. Butler
  835 F.2d 92· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-05
  The court held that statements made during a prayer session with a police officer, following a lawful recording of conversations, were voluntary and not a violation of due process, thus denying habeas corpus relief.
• Montalvo v. State
  520 So. 2d 292· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-12-18
  The court held that the impoundment of the defendant's vehicle was unreasonable, rendering the subsequent search and arrest unlawful, and that the trial court's reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines were invalid.
• Krajnak v. State
  509 So. 2d 970· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-07-01
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained after an arrest lacking probable cause.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  767 F.2d 1133· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-30
  The court held that signing a consent form for bank records does not have testimonial significance that can be compelled under the Fifth Amendment.
• United States v. Carson
  762 F.2d 831-833· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-13
  The court held that the defendant's voluntary consent to a second search purged any taint from a prior potentially illegal search, and that the magistrate erred in not considering the legality of the search.
• United States v. Hood
  748 F.2d 439· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-05
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, ruling on impeachment, or refusing the accomplice jury instruction, and affirmed the conviction.
• Ferrer v. State
  440 So. 2d 75· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-11-16
  Jose Pablo Ferrer appeals his marijuana trafficking conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of a rental truck at an agricultural inspection station. The court reversed, finding the search unlawful beca
• United States v. Maier
  720 F.2d 978· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-10
  The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were admissible because they were voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from any potential illegal detention, and that the inventory search was valid.
• State v. Cleo D. LeCROY and Jon M. LeCroy
  435 So. 2d 354· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-07-27
  Florida appeals from a trial court order dismissing two robbery counts and suppressing statements and physical evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the robbery counts, finding the indictments contained suf
• Sprowls v. State
  433 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-06-28
  The dissenting judge would hold that the police's actions constituted an unconstitutional seizure of the defendant's suitcase, invalidating the subsequent search warrant and conviction.
• Cooper v. State
  432 So. 2d 161· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-05-11
  Cooper appeals his conviction for grand theft and aggravated assault. The court affirmed the aggravated assault conviction but reversed the grand theft conviction, reducing it to petty theft, based on the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to evidence obtaine
• Sarno v. State
  424 So. 2d 829· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-09
  This consolidated appeal addresses the legality of a massive narcotics investigation called "the Sting," involving approximately 120 arrests. The court upheld the validity of electronic surveillance devices, wiretap authorizations, and the use of a cooperating witness despite app
• Phillips v. Marsh
  687 F.2d 620· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-18
  The court held that a delay in graduation does not constitute irreparable harm, and therefore reversed the portion of the preliminary injunction requiring the Academy to graduate the plaintiff.
• State v. Torres
  412 So. 2d 941· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-04-20
  Florida's suppression order is reversed because police had reasonable suspicion to detain Torres pending victim identification, and the evidence (fingerprints, firearm, and in-court identification) was not a product of any unlawful detention.
• Francis v. State
  412 So. 2d 931· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-04-15
  Francis was convicted of robbery with a firearm at a convenience store. He appealed challenging the admissibility of a shotgun and confession based on an alleged misstatement in the arrest warrant affidavit. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the misstatement was innocent
• K. H. v. State
  407 So. 2d 266· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-12-08
  K. H., a juvenile, was arrested without a warrant for grand larceny based on hearsay statements from another arrestee. The court held that the officer lacked probable cause because he failed to establish the reliability of the informant's statements, and therefore reversed the ad
• Kilpatrick v. State
  403 So. 2d 1104· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-09-17
  The court held that the warrantless seizure of marijuana plants was an invalid search because the officer was not in a place he had a lawful right to be, and the subsequent consent to search was tainted.
• United States v. Weller
  652 F.2d 964· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-06
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements made to CBI agents and evidence derived from the Monte Carlo incident.
• Salazar v. State
  398 So. 2d 831· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-12-24
  Salazar was convicted of importing marijuana and conspiracy after confessing to police. He appealed, arguing his confession should have been suppressed because it resulted from an unlawful arrest and violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed the
• McANNIS v. State
  386 So. 2d 1230· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-07-15
  The court held that the officer's actions constituted a legal citizen's arrest, even though he identified himself as a police officer, because he had not yet disclosed his official identity to the participants in the transaction.
• Newell v. State
  381 So. 2d 361· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-03-26
  Appellant Newell was arrested based on an invalid arrest warrant for burglary, during which officers searched him and found hashish. The court affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress, holding that even though one basis for the stop (the defective arrest warrant) was unconst
• Nicholo v. State
  379 So. 2d 169· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-01-23
  Anthony Nicholo appeals the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence and a confession obtained following a warrantless search. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the initial search violated the Fourth
• United States v. Harper
  609 F.2d 1198· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-27
  The court held that the District Court erred in refusing to require the government to disclose the identity of an informant, as this prevented the defendant from proving potential police misconduct that could invalidate the evidence and arrest.
• United States v. Hauser
  603 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-24
  The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant is admissible, even if obtained after an allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest, if the evidence is not the fruit of that arrest.
• United States v. Edwards
  602 F.2d 458· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-28
  The court held that the initial opening of the package by airline personnel was not government action subject to the Fourth Amendment, and that any inaccuracies in the search warrant affidavit were made in good faith and did not invalidate the warrant. The warrantless entry into
• State v. Gamble
  370 So. 2d 428· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-05-01
  The State appealed from trial court orders suppressing evidence (stereo equipment) and statements obtained from defendant Leon Gamble following a traffic stop. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on a BOLO broa
• United States v. Parsons
  585 F.2d 941· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-07
  The court held that the arrest warrant was not invalid, and the seizure of evidence was lawful, despite a factual inaccuracy in the affidavit supporting the warrant.
• Doyle James Harris v. State
  352 So. 2d 1269· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-12-16
  Harris was charged with marijuana possession after police removed a plastic bag from his pocket without a lawful basis. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, but this court reversed, finding the initial search was not incident to a lawful arrest and lacked p
• United States v. Pacee
  564 F.2d 306· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-08
  The court held that the evidence was not obtained as a result of an illegal border detention and affirmed the conviction.
• Bennett v. State
  350 So. 2d 14· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-08-23
  The court held that the police lacked probable cause to stop or search the appellant's vehicle, thus the evidence found was inadmissible.
• State v. Traas
  343 So. 2d 1294· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-03-16
  Florida appealed the trial court's suppression of evidence obtained from a confidential informant at a federally-funded drug treatment facility. The appellate court reversed, holding that the informant's initial discovery of the defendant's illegal conduct was lawful since the po
• United States ex rel. James Ellis Foye v. State OF NEW Jersey & Ronald Groomes
  547 F.2d 217· 3d Cir.· 1977-01-05
  The court held that the district court did not err in placing the burden of proof on the habeas petitioner and that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and not tainted by any alleged Miranda violations.
• Vollmer v. State
  337 So. 2d 1024· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-09-29
  The court held that the initial stop of the appellant was unjustified, rendering subsequent actions and evidence obtained invalid.
• United States v. Hamlin
  540 F.2d 742· 4th Cir.· 1976-08-26
  Evidence obtained from a search conducted under a state warrant, even if federal officers were peripherally involved in discussions, is admissible if the search was primarily a state undertaking and not subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41.
• United States v. Doss
  535 F.2d 338· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-05
  The affidavit presented to the magistrate did not establish probable cause to believe the stolen guns were in the warehouse to be searched.
• United States ex rel. Thomas Mungo v. LaVALLEE
  522 F.2d 211· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-15
  The court held that the arrest and search were conducted without probable cause, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and thus the evidence obtained should have been suppressed.
• Santiago v. State
  314 So. 2d 246· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-06-10
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the police lacked probable cause for his arrest and that his incriminating statements were made voluntarily after proper Miranda warnings.
• van Horn v. United States
  508 F.2d 666· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-20
  The court held that the denial of the appellant's motions for a new trial and consolidated § 2255 motion was proper, as his arguments regarding evidence suppression and newly discovered evidence lacked merit.