56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the patdown search and subsequent interrogation were constitutional, and the admission of the defendant's statements was proper.
-
The court held that the government's involvement in the criminal activity did not violate the appellants' due process rights, and other asserted errors were either meritless or harmless.
-
The court held that reasonable suspicion, not real suspicion, is the standard for strip searches at the border and that the defendant was not prejudiced by the government's failure to disclose certain statements prior to trial.
-
The court held that the warrantless insertion of an electronic beeper into contraband packages, which the appellant had no right to possess, did not violate his constitutional rights.
-
-
The dissenting judge believes the case should be remanded for supplementation on factual issues regarding an addict-informant's testimony before a final decision on conviction.
-
Three defendants convicted of maritime drug trafficking under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess and possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine aboard a stateless vessel in interna
-
The court held that the defendant's allegations of falsity in the search warrant affidavits were insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing and that the jury instructions were adequate. However, the court vacated one of the firearm convictions based on precedent regarding mul
-
The court held that the police encounter did not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bag, thus the evidence was admissible. The conviction for failure to appear was also affirmed.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator testimony, denying a motion for directed verdict due to insufficient evidence, or refusing to permit a witness to testify.
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, and the subsequent detention ripened into a lawful Terry-type stop only after the suspects provided inconsistent information, which, combined with drug courier profile characteristics, established reasonable suspicion.
-
The acquittal of a co-defendant on a conspiracy charge does not render inadmissible co-conspirator statements used to convict the remaining defendant on other charges, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the jury instructions were proper, the exclusion of the wife's testimony was harmless error, the co-conspirator's statement was admissible, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the judge's questioning did not deny a fair trial.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrests and subsequent searches of paper bags were lawful as incidents to arrest, and the entry into Fleming's home was justified by exigent circumstances. Evidence was sufficient for conviction and forfeiture.
-
The court held that the district court did not apply the correct standard for determining voluntary consent to search Sanchez's apartment, vacating Sanchez and Alvarez's convictions. The convictions of Maldonado, Delgado, and Dominguez were affirmed.
-
544 F.2d 213·
5th Cir.·
1976-12-20
·cited 39×
The Fifth Circuit reversed the convictions, finding that the trial court's excessive intervention created an appearance of bias, and that the jury charge on entrapment effectively directed a verdict against the defendants on the issue of inducement. Additionally, the court found
-
The court held that the FAA regulations requiring search of carry-on baggage at airports were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the search of the defendant's bag was lawful.
-
474 F.2d 699·
2d Cir.·
1973-02-15
·cited 39×
The court held that the law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant and probable cause to search her camera case, making the discovered narcotics admissible.
-
A suspect's alleged abandonment of a place or thing implicates only the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim, not Article III standing, and the government waives the issue if not raised below.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the defendant failed to exhaust administrative remedies for credit for time spent on electronic monitoring.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, and the derivative firearms conviction must also be reversed, but the forfeiture order could stand based on the possession conviction.
-
The court held that venue was improper for the attempted distribution charge because Lam's own actions did not occur in the district, and the government failed to prove he aided and abetted the principals. The court also remanded for resentencing due to errors in applying the Sen
-
The court held that the district court did not err in considering unadjudicated conduct to calculate the defendant's base offense level and in applying an upward adjustment for his leadership role in a drug conspiracy.
-
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.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting and allowing the use of translated transcripts of Spanish conversations, refusing a defense transcript, responding to a jury question, finding sufficient evidence for constructive possession, or in sentencing decisio
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and that the defendant's consent to search was voluntary, affirming the denial of the suppression motion. However, the court reversed the sentence, finding the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guide
-
The court held that the observed facts were insufficient to establish probable cause for Ingrao's arrest, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a bill of particulars without demonstrated prejudice, and that the admission of a polygraph clause in a plea agreement was not reversible error. However, the court vacated Perrino's sentence due to a violation of Rule
-
The court held that a defendant's explicit disclaimer of ownership of luggage negates a legitimate expectation of privacy, justifying its search without consent. The court also held that a firearm found in a car used in furtherance of a drug offense warrants a sentencing enhancem
-
The court held that the evidence obtained from the search of the defendant's train compartment and luggage was admissible because the defendant voluntarily consented to the search.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony regarding threats made to a co-conspirator not directly communicated to the defendant, nor did the government's conduct violate due process.
-
The court held that the defendant was not illegally detained and that there was sufficient evidence to prove knowing possession of the cocaine.
-
The court held that Jody Caddell's consent to tape-recorded calls was voluntary, but the search warrant affidavit lacked probable cause due to insufficient underlying circumstances from the informants.
-
The court held that law enforcement officials lacked probable cause to arrest Everroad without a warrant, rendering the subsequent seizure of evidence unlawful.
-
The court held that substituting an alternate juror after deliberations began, while a violation of Rule 24(c), was not reversible error absent a showing of prejudice, and that the initial wiretap authorization was supported by probable cause.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of evidence regarding a heroin episode was not reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on government over-involvement as a defense for Oscar, and that the prosecutor's comment on Miladys' post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence was improper but harmless error.
-
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.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance without stating reasons and in failing to inspect potentially discoverable Jencks Act material. The case is remanded for further proceedings on these issues.
-
The court held that the district court's inquiry into the potential conflict of interest arising from joint representation was sufficient to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to separate counsel.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's person was incident to a valid arrest based on probable cause, and therefore the evidence obtained was admissible.
-
The court held that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule was properly applied, probable cause existed for the search, and the informant's identity was not required to be disclosed.
-
The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's prior inconsistent statement for impeachment purposes, even without a limiting instruction, did not constitute plain error when the statement was not overly damaging and the evidence of guilt was otherwise substantial. The c
-
The court held that the government's misleading pretrial representations about not intending to use the defendant's statement, combined with the trial court's admission of that statement for impeachment, constituted reversible error.
-
The court held that the appellant had standing to challenge the search of his companion for the possession count, but not for the importation count. The court also found the confession to be voluntary.
-
The court held that the independent evidence against Quiroz-Santi was insufficient to sustain his conviction for conspiracy.
-
The court held that the jury instructions regarding 'guilty knowledge,' including the concept of deliberate ignorance, were proper and did not constitute plain error, and that the charge as a whole correctly conveyed the standard of proof.
-
The court held that a brief, unsolicited mention of a 'gram scale' found in the defendant's apartment, followed by a strong curative jury instruction, did not constitute reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that a witness's violation of a sequestration order, when corrected, does not automatically warrant reversal, and that circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to eliminate all reasonable doubt for a conviction.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for drug offenses was valid, rejecting all grounds for appeal.