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

• Staples v. United States
  320 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-10 ·cited 37×
  The court held that evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure, even if conducted by state officers, must be suppressed in federal court. Arrests made solely for 'investigation' are unlawful.
• United States v. Nardone
  127 F.2d 521· 2d Cir.· 1942-04-07 ·cited 37×
  The court held that if the prosecution proves evidence used was derived from independent sources, it purges itself of unlawful conduct, even if illicit information spurred the investigation.
• State v. Young
  974 So. 2d 601· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-02-25 ·cited 36×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a church pastor's office and computer, and statements made during subsequent interrogation. The court held that the pastor had a legitimate expectation of privacy
• Cunningham v. State
  591 So. 2d 1058· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-12-27 ·cited 36×
  Willie Cunningham was charged with cocaine possession after police searched him based on an anonymous tip. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress, holding that while an anonymous tip may justify an investigative stop,
• United States v. North
  920 F.2d 940· D.C. Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 36×
  A government official cannot be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071 for altering documents if they reasonably believed their actions were legal.
• United States v. McDOWELL
  918 F.2d 1004· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence against the defendant was legally gathered and his conviction was lawful, but a new sentencing hearing is required due to insufficient findings regarding a sentencing enhancement.
• United States v. Masse
  816 F.2d 805· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that pre-arrest statements were admissible as the defendant was not in custody, and subsequent statements were admissible as they were voluntary and informed waivers after Miranda warnings. Co-conspirator statements and jury instructions
• Deguster Blake Zeigler v. State
  471 So. 2d 172· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-06-18 ·cited 36×
  Where a defendant has invoked his right to counsel and subsequently given a statement without counsel present and without a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right, the statement must be suppressed even if a written waiver form was signed earlier, and the defendant must be dis
• United States v. Salvador
  740 F.2d 752· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury, and that the warrantless entry into the residence was justified by exigent circumstances, making the subsequent seizure of evidence proper.
• United States v. Merritt
  695 F.2d 1263· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the truck, the search of the truck was justified as a limited protective search, and the detention constituted a lawful investigatory stop rather than an arrest.
• United States v. Ivo Martinez-Gonzalez
  686 F.2d 93· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence seized from apartment 7F was admissible because the agents had probable cause to arrest Martinez and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.
• United States v. Segura
  663 F.2d 411· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the initial warrantless entry into the apartment was unlawful, evidence discovered pursuant to a subsequently issued, valid search warrant should not have been suppressed. However, evidence discovered during the unlawful entry prior to the warrant's issu
• United States v. Seni
  662 F.2d 277· 4th Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury instructions were adequate, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and importation, and the defendants' Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges were without merit.
• United States v. Bienvenue
  632 F.2d 910· 1st Cir.· 1980-09-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's statements were voluntary, evidence obtained from an unlawful search was admissible under independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines, the admission of the wife's statement was harmless error, but the special parole term for a conspir
• United States v. Sanders
  631 F.2d 1309· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the seizure of narcotics was not justified under the plain view doctrine and that post-arrest statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest.
• United States v. Vicknair
  610 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendants lacked automatic standing to challenge the November search and did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vessel, thus the evidence seized in December was not tainted by the earlier illegal search.
• United States v. Vasquez-Santiago
  602 F.2d 1069· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the DEA agents had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and that the consent to search the suitcase was voluntary, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Cortellesso
  601 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the search warrants, when viewed against the supporting affidavits, were sufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence seized under them was lawfully obtained.
• United States v. Grayson
  597 F.2d 1225· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the border search was reasonable, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the refusal to give a specific 'two hypotheses' jury instruction was not error.
• United States v. Donald E. Belle. Appeal of Donald Belle
  593 F.2d 487· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 36×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement in a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction, violates the Confrontation Clause if it is powerfully incriminating and the jury cannot be expected to disregard it.
• Currens v. State
  363 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-10-04 ·cited 36×
  Ronald Currens appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, challenging whether a police officer had lawful grounds to order him out of a legally parked vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that the officer lacked reasonable susp
• United States v. Vasquez
  534 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedures, affirming their convictions.
• Lynnwell Smith v. Estelle
  527 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-20 ·cited 36×
• United States v. Crocker
  510 F.2d 1129· 10th Cir.· 1975-02-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in applying 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501 to determine the voluntariness of the confession and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Heisman
  503 F.2d 1284· 8th Cir.· 1974-10-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a co-tenant's consent to search a separate, private room of another co-tenant is invalid if the consenting party lacks joint access or control over that specific room. The court also held that probable cause existed for Radford's arrest and the subsequent sear
• United States v. Kilgen
  445 F.2d 287· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-25 ·cited 36×
  Evidence seized and confession obtained during an arrest under a subsequently invalidated statute are admissible if police acted in good faith reliance on the statute.
• United States v. Friedland
  441 F.2d 855· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that even if law enforcement was put on notice of criminal activity through illegal bugging, this alone does not immunize a defendant from investigation and prosecution for unrelated crimes discovered through lawful means. The court also held that an overheard conv
• McGARRY v. United States
  388 F.2d 862· 1st Cir.· 1967-12-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the exclusion of the appellant's net worth chart was not prejudicial, and that the admission of certain statements made to revenue agents and the denial of motions to suppress were proper.
• Kennedy v. United States
  353 F.2d 462· D.C. Cir.· 1965-09-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the identification of the appellant was not the fruit of illegal police conduct and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as the circumstances did not involve a confession elicited after denial of counsel.
• McLINDON v. United States
  329 F.2d 238· D.C. Cir.· 1964-02-06 ·cited 36×
• Ortiz v. State
  24 So. 3d 596· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-11-13 ·cited 35×
  The Fifth District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, affirmed the denial of Emmanuel Ortiz's motion to suppress cocaine and drug paraphernalia discovered during a deputy's warrantless entry into his home. The court held that the deputy's entry was justified by exigent circumstanc
• Hatcher v. State
  834 So. 2d 314· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-01-03 ·cited 35×
  Quentin Hatcher appeals his convictions for firearm possession by a convicted felon, carrying a concealed weapon, and cocaine possession, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The court affirmed, holding that while
• United States v. Blackman
  66 F.3d 1572· 11th Cir.· 1995-10-20 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge holds that the appellants were under arrest at the time of their initial seizures, as a reasonable person in their situation would have believed they were not free to leave for an indefinite period. Therefore, the subsequent arrests were unlawful due to the l
• Autry v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  706 F.2d 1394· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit in Autry's claims regarding witness immunity, admission of oral statements, extraneous offenses, or insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Roni Nadler
  698 F.2d 995· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises, thus lacking standing to challenge the search or suppress derivative evidence. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of prior counter
• United States v. Renteria
  625 F.2d 1279· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to rule on motions to suppress and by not conducting a Jackson v. Denno hearing on the voluntariness of the confession, requiring remand for these determinations. The court also remanded to determine if the jury heard prejudici
• United States v. Napoleon Maryland, Jr.
  479 F.2d 566· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-02 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the appellant had no standing to challenge the search of the police vehicle because he voluntarily abandoned the counterfeit bills, and the arrest was lawful.
• Rigoberto Sanchez-Velasco v. State
  570 So. 2d 908· Fla.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 34×
  Rigoberto Sanchez-Velasco was convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery of an 11-year-old child, and theft, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, rejecting challenges to the admission of his confession, jury selectio
• United States v. Quinn
  815 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-23 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority improperly overturned the district court's factual findings regarding the equivalence of a Terry stop to a formal arrest.
• Agee v. J.D. White
  809 F.2d 1487· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a confession obtained after an illegal arrest is admissible if the taint of the arrest is sufficiently attenuated by intervening circumstances, and that a suspect's subjective belief of immunity, absent police misrepresentation, does not render a Miranda waive
• Lothar Sommer v. State
  465 So. 2d 1339· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-02-21 ·cited 34×
  Appellant Sommer appealed the denial of his motion to suppress drug evidence found during a search of his vehicle. The court affirmed, holding that the officer's initial contact was lawful and that the subsequent vehicle search was justified as a search incident to a lawful arres
• United States v. Pappas
  735 F.2d 1232· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the shotgun found during an inventory search of the defendant's vehicle should have been suppressed as evidence because the search was not justified.
• United States v. Arnaldo Melendez-Gonzalez
  727 F.2d 407· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the roving border patrol agents lacked sufficient cause to justify the warrantless stop of the defendant's automobile, and the subsequent search was also illegal, rendering the conviction invalid.
• Palmes v. State
  425 So. 2d 4· Fla.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 34×
  Timothy Palmes, a death row inmate, appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to vacate his murder conviction and death sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, finding that most issues were improper for colla
• United States v. Morin
  665 F.2d 765· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the second stop of the defendant constituted an illegal arrest because it was not supported by probable cause and was a successive stop based on the same information. The defendant's subsequent disclaimer of luggage was tainted by this illegal arrest.
• United States v. Williams
  633 F.2d 742· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-31 ·cited 34×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the defendant's residence, and the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause.
• United States v. Melvin
  596 F.2d 492· 1st Cir.· 1979-04-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the warrants issued for the search of the defendant's home and car were fatally defective because the affidavit supporting them did not establish adequate probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Delguyd
  542 F.2d 346· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the majority erred in reversing the suppression order regarding Maimone, as the trial judge's finding of no exigent circumstances was not clearly erroneous.
• D'Agostino v. State
  310 So. 2d 12· Fla.· 1975-02-28 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure. D'Agostino was arrested and searched at a hotel parking lot based on a vague BOLO alert and inconclusive witness descriptions, and stolen jewelr
• State v. Statewright
  300 So. 2d 674· Fla.· 1974-05-15 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a District Court of Appeal decision that reversed a first-degree murder conviction based on insufficient Miranda warnings. The court held that because the interrogation occurred before Miranda v. Arizona was decided, Miranda's requirements did no