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. Rettig
  589 F.2d 418· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-17 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence seized from Rettig's residence must be suppressed because the search exceeded the scope of the warrant and was used as an instrument for a general search, despite the warrant's particularity.
• United States v. Wright
  573 F.2d 681· 1st Cir.· 1978-03-28 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, tape recordings, the prosecutor's comment on the failure to call witnesses, time variance, a car rental payment slip, and the denial of an accomplice instruction were not grounds for reversible error.
• United States v. Bolin
  514 F.2d 554· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-25 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the defendant's consent to search his home was involuntary due to an implied threat regarding his girlfriend's arrest, making the seized letters inadmissible. The court also found that admitting evidence of the defendant being armed was permissible under the d
• United States v. Cole
  463 F.2d 163· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-06 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for tax evasion and conspiracy were supported by sufficient evidence and that the admission of a prior conviction, even though later vacated, was permissible due to defense tactics.
• United States v. Jackson
  448 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-13 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the defendants' due process rights were not violated by an inadvertent pretrial confrontation with witnesses, nor by a lawful investigatory stop and seizure of evidence, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Pulvano
  629 F.2d 1151· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-07 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the evidence obtained from the appellant's person and suitcase was admissible because the initial encounter was not a seizure, the subsequent arrest was based on probable cause, and the consent to search was voluntary.
• United States v. Girard
  601 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-20 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the unauthorized sale of government information constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
• Christopher v. State
  583 So. 2d 642· Fla.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 48×
  William Christopher appeals his murder convictions and death sentence for killing Bertha Skillin and George Ahern. The Florida Supreme Court affirms his convictions but vacates his death sentence because the trial judge failed to issue written sentencing findings prior to pronoun
• Dees v. State
  564 So. 2d 1166· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-07-16 ·cited 48×
  Joann Dees appeals the denial of her motion to suppress cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia seized during a traffic stop. The court holds that the stop was illegal because Deputy Salter lacked founded suspicion to detain Dees, and reverses the conviction.
• United States v. Gonzalez-Sandoval
  894 F.2d 1043· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the admission of un-Mirandized statements was harmless error, the deportation record and confession were admissible, speedy trial and due process claims were meritless, denial of continuance was not an abuse of discretion, and sentencing under the Guidelines w
• United States v. Antone
  753 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court's rulings on probable cause, factual basis for guilty pleas, and suppression motions were correct.
• Shriner v. Louie L. Wainwright
  715 F.2d 1452· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as there were no constitutional infirmities in the state proceedings regarding Shriner's conviction or sentence.
• United States v. Harlen Manuel
  706 F.2d 908· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was admissible, his speedy trial rights were not violated, and the refusal to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter was harmless error.
• United States v. Hozie Chamberlin
  644 F.2d 1262· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-07 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a 20-minute detention in a patrol car for custodial interrogation, without probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence derived from such detention must be suppressed.
• Sheff v. State
  301 So. 2d 13· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-09-12 ·cited 48×
  Thomas Sheff was convicted of drug possession after police discovered marijuana in his motel room and vehicle. The court held that while the initial warrantless entry into his motel room by a police officer at the proprietor's invitation was illegal, the evidence obtained from hi
• Long v. United States
  360 F.2d 829· D.C. Cir.· 1966-04-15 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the admission of evidence and testimony challenged on grounds of Mallory violations, witness coercion, and improper jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. ex rel. George W. Craig v. Maroney
  348 F.2d 22· 3d Cir.· 1965-06-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the petitioner's confession was admissible, as it was not tainted by an alleged illegal arrest and was made voluntarily despite the circumstances. The court also held that evidence obtained from a warrantless search was inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio, but Map
• Fagundes v. United States
  340 F.2d 673· 1st Cir.· 1965-01-25 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the initial discovery of money in the car was not an illegal search, making subsequent evidence admissible, but using the defendant's post-arrest silence and request for counsel for impeachment purposes was reversible error.
• Jackson v. United States
  313 F.2d 572· D.C. Cir.· 1962-12-20 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a conviction for second-degree murder is permissible under a felony-murder indictment, and that confessions obtained after arrest but before unnecessary delay in presentation to a magistrate are admissible.
• Chin KAY v. United States
  311 F.2d 317· 9th Cir.· 1962-11-26 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on sufficient probable cause, even if some portions of the supporting affidavit were questionable, because other essential allegations were sufficient.
• Goldsmith v. United States
  277 F.2d 335· D.C. Cir.· 1960-03-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that confessions obtained in violation of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically the prompt arraignment requirement, are inadmissible.
• Smith v. United States
  254 F.2d 751· D.C. Cir.· 1958-03-27 ·cited 48×
  A warrantless entry into a suspect's home to make an arrest is illegal if the police had an opportunity to obtain a warrant and did not announce the cause for their demand, rendering any evidence obtained from such entry inadmissible.
• United States v. Portwood
  857 F.2d 1221· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 47×
  Prior convictions for burglary second degree under Missouri law qualify as 'burglary' for sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
• State v. Phoenix
  428 So. 2d 262· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-11-10 ·cited 47×
  Florida appeals suppression orders in three related criminal cases, arguing that Martin County officers acting outside their jurisdiction could make valid citizen's arrests based on probable cause they lawfully obtained, even though they used marked police vehicles and identified
• United States v. Choate
  576 F.2d 165· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-15 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the mail cover did not violate the Fourth Amendment or postal regulations, and evidence derived from it was not tainted.
• United States v. Frisbie
  550 F.2d 335· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-11 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was unlawful because it was not based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search of the camper was also unlawful as it lacked probable cause or consent.
• United States v. Robinson
  535 F.2d 881· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the initial stop of the defendant's vehicle was unlawful, rendering the subsequent search and arrest violative of the Fourth Amendment.
• Davis v. State
  834 So. 2d 322· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-01-03 ·cited 46×
  Jeffrey Davis appeals his convictions for robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon following his nolo contendere plea. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed his convictions, holding that police viola
• United States v. Veillette
  778 F.2d 899· 1st Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 46×
  The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, held that a warrant obtained in partial reliance on observations from an illegal search, issued over 48 hours after entry, was valid.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  763 F.2d 1127· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the officer's conduct, including moving the suspect to the police station during an investigative detention, was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Cherry
  759 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court misapplied the inevitable discovery exception because the government failed to show active pursuit of lawful means to discover the evidence at the time of the misconduct. However, the court remanded for reconsideration of the consent to sear
• United States v. Cyril B. Fitzharris
  633 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-22 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence seized from the ranch was admissible against Fitzharris and Cantu, affirming their convictions, but reversed Whatley's conviction due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Karathanos
  531 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-02 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in its review of the search warrant, failing to give proper deference to the magistrate's probable cause determination and applying hypertechnical scrutiny.
• United States v. Hall
  525 F.2d 857· D.C. Cir.· 1976-01-08 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting opinion would hold that the investigatory stop and subsequent interrogation were unlawful under Terry v. Ohio, requiring suppression of the seized evidence.
• United States v. Seay
  432 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-01 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the subjective intent of police to use a state arrest as a pretext for federal investigation does not invalidate an otherwise lawful arrest, but remanded Seay's case to determine if probable cause existed for his vagrancy arrest, as his conviction hinged on fi
• United States v. Marson
  408 F.2d 644· 4th Cir.· 1968-06-13 ·cited 46×
  The court should hold that the principles of United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California apply to photographic identifications conducted after a defendant is in custody, and therefore, the defendant is entitled to further proceedings.
• Colella v. United States
  360 F.2d 792· 1st Cir.· 1966-04-21 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the indictment was valid, evidence was properly handled, and jury instructions were adequate, despite minor errors, leading to an affirmance of the conviction.
• Nelson v. United States (two cases)
  208 F.2d 505· D.C. Cir.· 1953-07-02 ·cited 46×
  The court held that evidence obtained from a defendant under duress and coercion during a Senate Committee investigation is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment, and this error requires reversal of convictions for all jointly tried defendants.
• State v. Fernandez
  526 So. 2d 192· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-06-07 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the trial court erred in suppressing evidence obtained from a traffic stop, as the stop was lawful and not pretextual.
• United States v. Cherry
  733 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights because the FBI agents continued to interrogate him after he made an equivocal request for an attorney. Therefore, the confession should not have been admitted at trial.
• United States v. Moore
  638 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-14 ·cited 45×
• United States v. Winsett
  518 F.2d 51· 9th Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 45×
  The exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation hearings when the police were unaware the suspect was a probationer at the time of the search and arrest.
• Jennings v. State
  512 So. 2d 169· Fla.· 1987-08-27 ·cited 44×
  Bryan Jennings was convicted of first-degree murder, felony murder, kidnapping with intent to commit sexual battery, sexual battery, and burglary in the 1979 abduction and death of six-year-old Rebecca Kunash. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence,
• United States v. Sokolow
  831 F.2d 1413· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the DEA agents possessed reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Sokolow and his luggage, and that the subsequent detentions and dog sniffs were permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Parker
  722 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit was insufficient, rendering the search unlawful, but remanded for further findings on whether evidence obtained was admissible under exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
• United States v. Gibbons
  607 F.2d 1320· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence obtained via search warrants, in admitting co-defendant's testimony, in denying a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, or in denying a motion to dismiss the jury panel due to prejudicial comments during
• United States v. Issod
  508 F.2d 990· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-20 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admissibility of evidence depends on the validity of the California search, which requires further factual determination, and thus the case must be remanded.
• United States v. Shye
  492 F.2d 886· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, making the subsequent arrest and seizure of evidence constitutional.
• Bretti v. Louie L. Wainwright
  439 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-24 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the introduction of a driver's license found during a search of the appellant's apartment was permissible, and the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• Roa-Rodriquez v. United States
  410 F.2d 1206· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's trunk and jacket was not incidental to a lawful arrest and was therefore illegal.