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. McKINES
  933 F.2d 1412· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-17 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the encounter between the DEA agent and the defendant did not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure, and therefore the evidence seized was admissible.
• United States v. Lacey Lee Koenig and Lee Graf
  856 F.2d 843· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 58×
  The court held that Graf lacked standing to challenge the search, and that Federal Express's initial search was conducted by a private actor, not a government agent, thus not violating the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, no warrant was required for subsequent searches of the packa
• United States v. Campbell
  843 F.2d 1089· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, and even if it ripened into a Terry-seizure, it was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent consent to search was voluntary.
• United States v. Tyjuan Jones
  759 F.2d 633· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-10 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the officers' actions, including approaching with guns drawn and attempting to get the suspect out of the car, did not constitute an arrest because they were reasonable precautions for an investigative stop under the circumstances. The subsequent discovery of
• United States v. Manbeck
  744 F.2d 360· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-11 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding grand jury discrimination, dismissal of a count, suppression of evidence, and sufficiency of evidence, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Lomas
  706 F.2d 886· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 58×
  The court should not extend United States v. Allard, 634 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir.1980) to the facts of this case because the government initiated the warrant process before securing the room, distinguishing it from Allard II.
• United States v. Beck
  598 F.2d 497· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-06 ·cited 58×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the convictions, finding the district court's determination of reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop was not clearly erroneous and that the stop did not ripen into an unlawful arrest.
• United States v. Dichiarinte
  445 F.2d 126· 7th Cir.· 1971-06-04 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and thus affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
• Williams v. United States
  382 F.2d 48· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-31 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the impounded automobile was unreasonable and that the evidence derived from this search, including a witness's identification, was inadmissible.
• Collins v. Beto
  348 F.2d 823· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-18 ·cited 58×
• United States v. Fredericks
  586 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 57×
  The court held that even if certain evidence was obtained in violation of a third party's rights, the defendants cannot use those violations to suppress evidence or testimony that does not directly infringe upon their own constitutional rights.
• Parker v. Estelle
  498 F.2d 625· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 57×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner was not denied credit for time spent in a mental hospital and that his other claims lacked merit or were moot.
• United States v. Jones
  475 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-20 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the search of the suitcase was lawful because the defendant voluntarily consented to the search, and therefore the evidence found was admissible.
• Baker v. United States
  393 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1968-04-04 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was permissible, the denial of motions for severance and speedy trial was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the discrepancies in the indictment and admission of a co-d
• McMASTER v. State
  780 So. 2d 1026· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-03-30 ·cited 56×
  Dennis McMaster appeals his probation sentence following a plea of nolo contendere to drug charges, arguing that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. The court reversed, holding that the stop was unconstitutional because the officers' observations—presence in a
• United States v. Zurosky
  614 F.2d 779· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the warehouse and the truck were justified under exigent circumstances and probable cause, and that the search of the vessel was permissible under the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement.
• Rinehart v. Lou V. Brewer
  561 F.2d 126· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a 15-year-old defendant's guilty plea was involuntary due to inadequate explanations and immaturity, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and was denied an impartial tribunal.
• United States v. Magda
  547 F.2d 756· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-22 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the officer's stop of the defendant was based on reasonable suspicion, making the subsequent arrest and search lawful.
• United States v. Solis
  536 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the use of trained dogs to detect the odor of marijuana emanating from a semi-trailer, in an area open to the public, did not constitute an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Cavallino
  498 F.2d 1200· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-15 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the arrest was lawful, the incriminating statements were admissible, and evidence of prior similar crimes was properly admitted to show identity and intent.
• Gilpin v. United States
  415 F.2d 638· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-09 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a confession obtained after an inadequate Miranda warning is inadmissible, and subsequent confessions are also inadmissible if they are a direct product of the initial tainted confession and the effects have not been dissipated.
• Donnie Young v. State
  803 So. 2d 880· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-01-04 ·cited 55×
  Donnie Young appeals the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine discovered in his vehicle after an officer stopped him at an unfinished apartment complex. The court held that the officer's use of emergency lights and positioning of the patrol car to block Young's vehicle consti
• Greenwell v. United States
  336 F.2d 962· D.C. Cir.· 1964-08-13 ·cited 55×
  Confessions and physical evidence obtained during an unnecessary delay between arrest and presentment before a magistrate are inadmissible. A co-defendant's confession, inadmissible against the co-defendant, is also inadmissible against the appellant.
• E.B. v. State
  866 So. 2d 200· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-02-25 ·cited 54×
  E.B. appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a consensual pat-down search by police officers in a park. The court reversed, holding that the officer exceeded the scope of consent by manipulating a tube-shaped container and opening it without probabl
• Revels v. State
  666 So. 2d 213· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-12-27 ·cited 54×
  Revels was convicted of possessing crack cocaine found after an arrest based on narcotics officers' surveillance of a known drug house. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that probable cause existed for the arrest based on the totality of circumstances, distinguishing the
• State v. Hoover
  520 So. 2d 696· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-03-02 ·cited 54×
  Florida appeals the suppression of evidence from a traffic stop where the officer lacked founded suspicion to stop the defendant's car. The court affirmed suppression, holding that an officer's observation of interracial contact in a high-crime area, without more, does not consti
• United States v. Thompson
  712 F.2d 1356· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 54×
  The court held that retaining a driver's license during an encounter transforms it into a Fourth Amendment seizure, and any subsequent consent or evidence obtained is tainted by this illegal detention.
• United States v. Patino
  649 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the initial police encounter with the defendant constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence obtained was tainted by this unlawful seizure.
• United States v. Johnson
  626 F.2d 753· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 54×
  Statements made by a defendant following an illegal arrest are inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' if they are not sufficiently attenuated from the illegality, even if Miranda warnings were given.
• United States v. Diggs
  522 F.2d 1310· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-03 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the agents' actions constituted an arrest without probable cause, and the subsequent search was therefore invalid.
• State v. Othen
  300 So. 2d 732· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-09-20 ·cited 54×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal quashed an order suppressing evidence from a vehicle search, holding that police may stop a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion short of probable cause, and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the stop was justified and whether
• United States v. Errol B. Resnick
  483 F.2d 354· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-04 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that while the admission of one witness's testimony was erroneous, it was harmless error, and other challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Lehman
  468 F.2d 93· 7th Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the IRS agents' conduct did not render Dr. Lehman's confession involuntary, nor did it violate his constitutional rights or IRS regulations to the extent requiring suppression of evidence.
• United States v. Williams
  436 F.2d 1166· 9th Cir.· 1970-12-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an in-court lineup, and the pretrial identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive or the fruit of an illegal search.
• United States v. Ganter
  436 F.2d 364· 7th Cir.· 1970-12-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that knowledge of the victim's federal status is not an element of 18 U.S.C. § 111, and that the arrest and subsequent seizure of evidence were based on probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the Miranda warnings were adequate.
• Durham v. United States
  403 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-08 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the May 5 search was unlawful due to insufficient probable cause in the affidavit, requiring suppression of evidence seized then. However, the counterfeit note used for conviction was not suppressible as fruit of that search.
• Waverly Leroy Payne v. United States
  294 F.2d 723· D.C. Cir.· 1961-07-13 ·cited 53×
  Evidence seized during a lawful arrest and identification of the defendant by a witness in open court are admissible, even if the arrestee was detained longer than permitted by Rule 5(a) without being brought before a magistrate, provided no evidence obtained from interrogation d
• United States v. Roper
  681 F.2d 1354· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-05 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing, finding that while evidence supported convictions and most searches were permissible, the sentencing judge's stated rationale for imposing maximum sentences was improper.
• Pomerantz v. State
  372 So. 2d 104· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-05-15 ·cited 52×
  Pomerantz was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after police searched his checked luggage at Miami International Airport and found drugs. The court reversed, holding that police actively participated in an unreasonable warrantless search that violated
• United States v. Hopkins
  433 F.2d 1041· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-09 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the warrantless search for vehicle identification numbers was permissible and that statements made by the defendant were admissible, either because they were voluntarily initiated after Miranda warnings or because the warnings given by federal agents carried o
• United States v. Edmons
  432 F.2d 577· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-05 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the exclusionary rule should not be expanded to cover courtroom identifications based on independent observations, nor should it automatically lead to dismissal of indictments.
• Lathers v. United States
  396 F.2d 524· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-23 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the arrest and subsequent search of the truck were illegal due to lack of probable cause, violating the Fourth Amendment.
• Parman v. United States
  399 F.2d 559· D.C. Cir.· 1968-05-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to bifurcate the trial, that the defendant abandoned his apartment and thus lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure, that spontaneous statements made upon arrest were admissible, and that the evi
• Gullett v. United States
  387 F.2d 307· 8th Cir.· 1967-12-27 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the vehicle's trunk was a reasonable search incident to a lawful arrest, as it was contemporaneous with and at the place of the arrest.
• Gillespie v. United States
  368 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1966-11-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, denying the motion to suppress, and admitting the seized evidence and its fruits.
• Robinson v. State
  547 So. 2d 321· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-08-10 ·cited 51×
  The court held that an ordinary razor blade is not a concealed weapon unless used in a threatening manner, and cocaine seized incident to an unlawful arrest for carrying a concealed weapon must be suppressed.
• United States v. Maria del Socorro Pardo Viuda De Aguilar
  883 F.2d 662· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 51×
  The court held that appellants could not present evidence of their mistaken interpretation of immigration laws as a defense to charges of smuggling, transporting, or harboring aliens, as ignorance or mistake of law is not a defense and such evidence would create undue trial burde
• United States v. Bailey
  691 F.2d 1009· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-19 ·cited 51×
  The court held that even if the initial arrest was illegal, the evidence seized was admissible because the defendant's subsequent flight and struggle constituted a new, distinct crime for which he could be lawfully arrested, and the search was incident to that lawful arrest.
• United States v. Brunson
  549 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-24 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the defendant voluntarily accompanied investigators, thus no illegal arrest occurred, and evidence of a prior similar crime was admissible to prove intent.
• United States v. Houltin
  525 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-12 ·cited 51×
  The court held that only defendants with a legitimate expectation of privacy in the wiretapped conversations or premises have standing to challenge the wiretaps, and that the convictions of those with standing were based on evidence tainted by illegal wiretaps.