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 re the Grand Jury Investigation OF Violations OF 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (Perjury)
  318 F.2d 533· 2d Cir.· 1963-05-20 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the order denying General Motors' motion to limit a grand jury investigation is not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• United States v. Edwards
  885 F.2d 377· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-20 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause based on imputed knowledge, and subsequent searches and statements were lawful.
• United States v. Briley
  726 F.2d 1301· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a warrantless arrest in a suspect's home is permissible if based on valid consent to enter, even if consent was obtained without full disclosure of the intent to arrest, provided the consent was voluntary.
• United States v. Lendale Hearn and Murray Taylor
  496 F.2d 236· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 43×
  The court held that appellants lacked standing to challenge the search of a co-defendant's premises, but the search of Taylor's barn was not consensual and evidence obtained was inadmissible.
• Moll v. United States
  413 F.2d 1233· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-03 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the appellant's arrest was lawful, and his confession was admissible because it was not the fruit of an illegal search, as the incriminating admission preceded the search and was based on independent police investigation.
• Peterson v. United States
  411 F.2d 1074· 8th Cir.· 1969-06-11 ·cited 43×
  The court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that evidence obtained independently of an illegal search was admissible. Claims of speedy trial violation and improper absence from a pre-trial chambers conference were also rejected.
• United States v. Hill
  626 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-24 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the agent's request for the defendant to accompany him to an office, after the defendant had twice refused a search without a warrant, constituted an arrest requiring probable cause, which was lacking.
• United States v. Allison
  616 F.2d 779· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the stop of the vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion, the arrest was supported by probable cause, and the consent to search was voluntary. However, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of one defendant.
• United States v. Jones
  608 F.2d 386· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the government's motion to reconsider the suppression order was timely, and the evidence and confession were admissible despite being discovered after an illegal arrest.
• United States v. Smith
  574 F.2d 882· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion authorizes stop and search on reasonable suspicion, violating Terry and Sibron.
• United States v. Race
  529 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1976-01-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the arrest and subsequent search were valid, and the evidence obtained was admissible.
• United States v. Fike
  449 F.2d 191· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that voluntary consent to a search is an independent act sufficient to break the causal chain between a potentially illegal prior search and the evidence obtained, rendering the evidence admissible.
• United States v. Hoffman
  385 F.2d 501· 7th Cir.· 1967-10-03 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the testimony of witnesses and the identification of defendants were not tainted by prior unlawful arrests, and that the government's calling of a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment was not prejudicial error.
• Anton Vaughn Evalt v. United States
  359 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the prosecuting attorney's remarks in final argument were severely and improperly prejudicial to the appellant.
• Pantin v. State
  872 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-05-12 ·cited 41×
  Johnny Pantin was stopped based on a BOLO for a stolen Mitsubishi and subsequently charged with felony driving with a revoked license. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, holding that the BOLO lacked sufficient specific
• Carroll v. State
  636 So. 2d 1316· Fla.· 1994-04-14 ·cited 41×
  Elmer Leon Carroll appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and sexual battery on a child under twelve and his death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirms all convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence of guilt, proper investigatory procedures, and approp
• United States v. Maez
  872 F.2d 1444· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 41×
  A warrantless arrest conducted by surrounding a home with armed officers and coercing the occupant to exit violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained thereafter is tainted unless sufficiently attenuated.
• United States v. Mendoza
  722 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the totality of circumstances, including an informant's tip and corroborating surveillance, established probable cause for the warrantless search of the vehicle, and that post-arrest statements were admissible.
• Johnson v. State
  395 So. 2d 594· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-03-20 ·cited 41×
  Johnson petitioned for certiorari to review a circuit court's reversal of county court orders granting his motions to suppress evidence and statements and to dismiss charges arising from a warrantless home entry by police. The appellate court held that Florida law and the Fourth
• Sullins v. United States
  389 F.2d 985· 10th Cir.· 1968-02-26 ·cited 41×
  The court held that inculpatory statements obtained without a valid waiver of the right to counsel, as required by Miranda, are inadmissible, and the case must be retried without such evidence.
• Dames v. State
  566 So. 2d 51· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-08-24 ·cited 40×
  Kenneth Dames appealed his cocaine possession conviction, arguing the police stop that led to the discovery of the drug was unconstitutional. The Florida appellate court agreed, finding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Dames and reversed the conviction.
• United States v. Lewis
  738 F.2d 916· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appellant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his mailbox, despite its condition and use in a fraudulent scheme. However, the conviction is affirmed because sufficient independent information supported the search warrant.
• United States v. Humphries
  636 F.2d 1172· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the government's appeal from the suppression order was properly before the court and that the suppressed evidence was not a fruit of the defendant's illegal arrest.
• United States v. Grunsfeld
  558 F.2d 1231· 6th Cir.· 1977-06-10 ·cited 40×
  The court should have suppressed evidence obtained via a warrant based on information procured through an unlawful break-in, as this information was material to probable cause.
• United States v. Holmes
  521 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 40×
  The installation of an electronic tracking device on a motor vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant. Evidence obtained from an unlawful search is inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree'.
• United States v. Nicholas
  448 F.2d 622· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the police officers' initial stop of the defendant was not justified by specific and articulable facts, thus violating the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, evidence obtained from the subsequent search was inadmissible.
• United States v. Arango
  912 F.2d 441· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the truck because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy, and his arrest was supported by probable cause.
• United States v. Houltin
  566 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-30 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the testimony of codefendants, even if discovered through illegal wiretaps, was admissible because it was either from an independent source or so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, and that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar retrial after a conviction w
• United States v. Jarvis
  560 F.2d 494· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-26 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a 'John Doe' arrest warrant lacking a particular description is invalid, but evidence obtained from an illegal arrest may not be suppressed if it would have been inevitably discovered. The court also found that while suggestive identification practices occurre
• United States v. Cales
  493 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-25 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court erred by applying a reasonable doubt standard instead of a preponderance of the evidence standard when determining if evidence was derived from an illegal wiretap.
• Agius v. United States
  413 F.2d 915· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-30 ·cited 39×
  The court held that statements made after the discovery of the toy gun were the result of custodial interrogation and should have been suppressed, requiring reversal. However, the toy gun and the out-of-court identification were admissible.
• United States v. Ivey
  915 F.2d 380· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of Ivey, Johnson, and Nance for drug-related offenses, and that the district court properly applied the inevitable discovery doctrine.
• United States v. Ingrao
  897 F.2d 860· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the observed facts were insufficient to establish probable cause for Ingrao's arrest, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Lima
  819 F.2d 687· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress because the arrest of the defendant was supported by probable cause, even considering the totality of the circumstances including his flight.
• United States v. Cordell
  723 F.2d 1283· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant was not illegally detained and that there was sufficient evidence to prove knowing possession of the cocaine.
• United States v. Garnet Dwight Everroad
  704 F.2d 403· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 38×
  The court held that law enforcement officials lacked probable cause to arrest Everroad without a warrant, rendering the subsequent seizure of evidence unlawful.
• United States v. Luz-Estella Alvarez-Porras
  643 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial judge properly applied the Geaney standard to admit coconspirator statements and that evidence seized from Garcia-Perez's apartment need not be suppressed, even with initial Fourth Amendment violations.
• McKENNEY v. State
  388 So. 2d 1232· Fla.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 38×
  Margaret McKenney appealed her conviction for assignation (prostitution-related offense) and habitual misdemeanor sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the assignation statute against vagueness and overbreadth challenges, rejected her claim that a
• United States v. Leonardi
  623 F.2d 746· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a witness's testimony is admissible even if discovered through an illegal search, provided the witness's decision to cooperate is voluntary and attenuated from the illegal conduct. The court also held that an in-court identification is admissible if the pretri
• United States v. Calandrella
  605 F.2d 236· 6th Cir.· 1979-08-31 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the arrest warrant was supported by probable cause and that the search of the briefcase, while requiring a warrant under Chadwick, did not necessitate suppression due to non-retroactivity.
• United States v. Augustine Ybarra Ortiz
  603 F.2d 76· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, continuance, and suppression of evidence, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Allard
  600 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-17 ·cited 38×
  The trial court must determine if observations from an illegal entry substantially motivated the warrant request, considering the exclusionary rule's remedial and deterrent objectives.
• United States v. Jobin
  535 F.2d 154· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the omission of IRS warnings at the initial interview warranted suppression of evidence obtained then, subsequent evidence was not tainted, and corporate records were not subject to suppression.
• United States v. Rias
  524 F.2d 118· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the officer lacked sufficient grounds to stop the vehicle and probable cause to arrest or search, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
• State v. Knapp
  294 So. 2d 338· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-05-01 ·cited 38×
  Florida appealed the suppression of marijuana evidence seized during the arrest and search of defendants Knapp and Bogart. The court reversed the trial court's order suppressing the evidence, holding that officers had probable cause for the warrantless arrest based on extensive s
• United States v. Derl Gray
  484 F.2d 352· 6th Cir.· 1973-08-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the seizure of the rifles was not justified under the plain view doctrine because it was not immediately apparent that they were incriminating evidence, and therefore the subsequent warrant was tainted.
• The United States v. Bazinet
  462 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that Bazinet's arrest was illegal due to lack of probable cause, requiring a hearing to determine if his subsequent consent to search was the fruit of that illegal arrest. Knox's conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Maxie Thomas and Wilbur Wiggins
  396 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-31 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for unlawful possession of stolen chinaware were valid because the cartons were in interstate or foreign commerce, and their statements to railroad police were admissible as they were not the product of an illegal arrest or custodia
• United States v. Kapperman
  764 F.2d 786· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the initial stop and subsequent detention of the defendants were lawful, and the search of the vehicle, including the suitcase, was valid based on consent.
• Aiuppa v. United States
  393 F.2d 597· 10th Cir.· 1968-04-25 ·cited 37×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the charges were distinct, witness testimony was admissible, the evidence was sufficient, and various trial errors were either cured or not prejudicial.