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. Mitchell
  425 F.2d 1353· 8th Cir.· 1970-04-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on a confidential informant's tip, corroborated by the officer's independent observations, and that the subsequent search was lawful.
• Thadious Edward Harney v. United States
  407 F.2d 586· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-21 ·cited 30×
  A subsequent confession obtained by federal agents after prior illegal custodial interrogation by local police, even with proper Miranda warnings, is inadmissible if the effects of the earlier illegality have not been sufficiently dissipated and the federal agents benefited from
• Green v. United States
  386 F.2d 953· 10th Cir.· 1967-12-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while some initial arrests and searches were unlawful, the subsequent federal search and evidence obtained were not tainted. However, the convictions were reversed due to inadequate jury instructions regarding the admission of co-conspirators' statements.
• Smith v. United States
  344 F.2d 545· D.C. Cir.· 1965-04-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that testimony derived from an illegal search is inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' if not sufficiently attenuated from the illegality.
• Junior T. Chappell v. United States
  342 F.2d 935· D.C. Cir.· 1965-01-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the police entry into the apartment was lawful, making the subsequent arrest and seizure of evidence valid.
• Killough v. United States
  336 F.2d 929· D.C. Cir.· 1964-06-04 ·cited 30×
  A subsequent confession is inadmissible if it is the tainted fruit of prior illegally obtained confessions, unless the government proves otherwise.
• Solino v. State
  763 So. 2d 1249· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-21 ·cited 29×
  Barry Solino was convicted of escape following an arrest based on an investigatory traffic stop. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that the stop was unlawful because it was based solely on an uncorroborated tip from an unidentifiable mot
• United States v. Rubio-Rivera
  917 F.2d 1271· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the referral to a secondary checkpoint was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the defendant's consent to search was not tainted.
• United States v. Carter
  884 F.2d 368· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 29×
  The trial judge clearly erred in suppressing evidence obtained after Miranda warnings were given.
• United States v. Carrion
  809 F.2d 1120· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to an entrapment instruction if they demonstrate predisposition to commit the crime, and that consecutive sentences for possession with intent to distribute and distribution are permissible if there is independent evidence of prior
• State v. Earnest Smith and Daniel Oliver
  477 So. 2d 658· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-10-31 ·cited 29×
  The State appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence obtained from Smith and Oliver, who were detained after fleeing from a police officer. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officer's initial approach was a permissible encounter, the subsequent chase constit
• United States v. Howard
  758 F.2d 1318· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the postal inspector had probable cause to arrest the appellant based on his suspicious conduct and association with others involved in a criminal enterprise.
• United States v. Dunn
  674 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-07 ·cited 29×
  The court held that warrantless searches of Dunn's ranch violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of evidence and reversal of his convictions, but affirmed Carpenter's convictions due to insufficient evidence to support his appeal.
• United States v. Lara
  638 F.2d 892· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-05 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court erred in not applying the proper standard to determine if a seizure occurred and remanded for further findings of fact.
• Delorenzo v. State
  921 So. 2d 873· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-03-08 ·cited 28×
  Ronald Delorenzo was convicted of cocaine possession after pleading no contest while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the officer's investigatory stop lacked the requisite reasonable sus
• Bautista v. State
  902 So. 2d 312· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-05-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the officers' request for the defendant to remove his wallet transformed a consensual encounter into an illegal detention, rendering subsequent evidence inadmissible.
• United States v. Jair De Jesus Mejia
  953 F.2d 461· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence seized was legally obtained, the trial court did not err in refusing to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines, and the failure to grant the right of allocution was harmless error.
• United States v. Leisure
  844 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Anthony Leisure, Charles Loewe, David Leisure, and Paul Leisure, but reversed and remanded Wougamon's convictions on Counts I and IV.
• United States v. Hasting
  739 F.2d 1269· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its voir dire questioning and that the defenses presented were not mutually antagonistic.
• United States v. Ned Emerson LEE
  699 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the initial confession and lead pipe were unlawfully obtained and properly suppressed, but the suppression of the shoes was erroneous.
• United States v. Woolery
  670 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant, making the subsequent seizure of evidence admissible.
• United States v. Francis
  646 F.2d 251· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3109 does not apply to commercial premises like a barbershop, and that the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce rule has less force when applied to businesses. The court also held that the arrest was based on probable cause and was not pretextual.
• United States v. Smith
  621 F.2d 483· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-02 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge believes the case should not be decided on the current record because the defendants were not properly put on notice regarding the issue of their standing to challenge the search.
• United States v. Korman
  614 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a warrantless entry to 'secure' premises pending a search warrant is an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from such entry must be suppressed.
• United States v. McGUIRE
  608 F.2d 1028· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that McGuire's severance and hearsay objections were properly denied, and Rivera's conviction for conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence, but his convictions for distribution and possession were not.
• United States v. Sherron Basey
  613 F.2d 198· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the admission of the voice identification, chemist's report, and driver's license was not erroneous.
• United States v. Barber
  557 F.2d 628· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the arrest of Keller was not supported by probable cause, requiring suppression of evidence and a new trial.
• United States v. Attilio Joe Spagnuolo
  549 F.2d 705· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that affidavits supporting wiretap applications must contain specific facts demonstrating why normal investigative procedures have failed or are unlikely to succeed, not just boilerplate conclusions. Evidence derived from tainted wiretaps cannot be used.
• United States v. Butts
  524 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the dismissal of the indictment was improper because the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice from the delay in prosecution and that the delay was an intentional tactic to gain a tactical advantage.
• United States ex rel. Jesse Owens v. Twomey
  508 F.2d 858· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted his state judicial remedies and that the district court erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition on that ground. The court further found that the evidence challenged as fruit of an illegal search was admissible under the inde
• Adams v. State
  295 So. 2d 114· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-05-22 ·cited 28×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the arrests of the defendants were lawful due to probable cause and that any evidence obtained was admissible.
• United States v. Ellsworth E. Lonabaugh, III
  494 F.2d 1257· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcases was unlawful because no exception to the warrant requirement, including exigent circumstances or the border search doctrine, applied.
• State v. Brooks
  281 So. 2d 55· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-07-25 ·cited 28×
  The State of Florida appeals a trial court's order suppressing evidence of a pistol found on James Brooks during a frisk conducted by Tampa police officers in a high-crime area in the early morning hours. The appellate court reverses, holding that the officers' frisk was reasonab
• United States v. Marder
  474 F.2d 1192· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that even if a witness's identity was discovered through an illegal wiretap, their testimony is admissible if the government can show the identity came from an independent source or the connection is sufficiently attenuated, and its admission was harmless error giv
• State v. Spanierman
  267 So. 2d 102· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-09-13 ·cited 28×
  A police officer's failure to advise a suspect of Fourth Amendment rights does not invalidate consent to search or establish involuntariness; the trial court must determine whether consent was actually given and, if given, whether it was freely and voluntarily provided based on a
• United States v. Sokolow
  450 F.2d 324· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the warrantless seizure of serial numbers from air conditioning units in a garage constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Balistrieri
  403 F.2d 472· 7th Cir.· 1968-11-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that evidence derived from illegal electronic eavesdropping and searches was sufficiently purged of taint and that the net worth method of proving tax evasion was properly applied.
• United States v. Pardo-Bolland
  348 F.2d 316· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that cablegrams obtained through initial illegal interception were admissible because knowledge was gained from an independent source and they were subsequently obtained by legal means (subpoenas). Electronic eavesdropping evidence was admissible as New York's anti
• Edwards v. United States
  330 F.2d 849· D.C. Cir.· 1964-03-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the testimony of the complaining witness and an accomplice was admissible in the adult trial, even though the defendants' confessions were obtained while they were juveniles under the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction.
• United States ex rel. Charles C. Campbell v. Rundle
  327 F.2d 153· 3d Cir.· 1964-01-27 ·cited 28×
• Ippolito v. State
  789 So. 2d 423· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-06-20 ·cited 27×
  Michael Ippolito was convicted of heroin possession after police conducted a warrantless search. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Ippolito, making the search unlawful and the evidence inadmissible
• United States v. Santucci
  674 F.2d 624· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 27×
• Hudson v. State
  368 So. 2d 899· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-02-27 ·cited 27×
  Marlene Hudson challenges her narcotics conviction based on a plea of nolo contendere, arguing that evidence obtained through a court-ordered wiretap should have been suppressed under Florida Statutes § 934.09. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the wiretap auth
• Gamble v. State OF Okla.
  583 F.2d 1161· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-20 ·cited 27×
  Federal courts are not precluded from considering Fourth Amendment claims in habeas corpus proceedings if state courts failed to recognize or apply controlling constitutional standards, such as those in Brown v. Illinois.
• Somsak Hoonsilapa v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  575 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that documents obtained after an illegal arrest are admissible if they are from independent sources or voluntary subsequent actions, and hearsay is admissible in deportation proceedings if probative and fundamentally fair.
• United States v. Portillo-Reyes
  529 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-17 ·cited 27×
  The insertion of a key into a car door to check for a fit, when based on founded suspicion, does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Even if it were a search, probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances.
• United States v. Scasino
  513 F.2d 47· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-16 ·cited 27×
  Defendants lack standing to suppress evidence derived from an illegal wiretap because they were not 'aggrieved persons' under the statute, as they were not parties to intercepted communications or targeted by the illegal wiretap.
• United States v. Hunt
  496 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-01 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the seizure of the boxes was a Fourth Amendment seizure unsupported by probable cause due to false statements and information derived from an unlawful search, rendering the warrant invalid.
• Etheridge v. United States
  380 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-11 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendants' pre-Miranda statements were admissible, and the evidence introduced at trial was not tainted by unlawful government surveillance.
• State v. Joelis Jardines
  9 So. 3d 1· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-10-22 ·cited 26×
  The State appeals the suppression of marijuana plants and related evidence seized from Jardines' home pursuant to a search warrant. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that a canine sniff is not a Fourth Amendment search, the officer was lawfully present