56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
A warrantless arrest in a hotel room for a misdemeanor is permissible under state law if probable cause exists for a closely related offense, and Fourth Amendment protections do not apply if the defendant has been justifiably ejected and lost a reasonable expectation of privacy.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy and possession convictions for Scott and Onick, reversing their convictions. The court affirmed the convictions for Tolliver, Perrett, and Galvan-Venegas, finding probable cause for their arrests.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that the jury instructions, despite potential ambiguity, did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because he was not seized when asked to accompany an agent and because he abandoned his bag, forfeiting any privacy interest.
-
The court held that the airport search and seizure of cocaine were constitutional, based on reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop and voluntary consent to search.
-
-
The court held that the extended border search was valid and the appellant's consent to the x-ray search was voluntary, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The indictment was insufficient because it lacked the specificity required to link the grand jury's concerns to the evidence presented at trial.
-
The court held that the admission of a customer book was erroneous and insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, and that the defendant was entitled to a lesser-included offense charge for simple possession.
-
The Court held that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Ross, which expanded the scope of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, applies retroactively to cases pending on appeal. Therefore, evidence seized from briefcases found in a v
-
The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, the trial court properly denied a motion to reopen the suppression hearing due to a lack of proof of misstatement, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance
-
The court held that the defendant's actions in facilitating a drug transaction, including introducing the parties, arranging the meeting, and quoting prices, were sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting, even without a direct financial stake.
-
The court held that any errors regarding extraneous offenses or prosecutorial misconduct were harmless due to the overwhelming weight of the evidence supporting the conviction.
-
The court held that the appellant's consent to accompany the agent to an office was voluntary, the subsequent arrest for providing false identification was lawful, and the search incident to that arrest was permissible, leading to the affirmance of his conviction.
-
The court held that the classification of cocaine as a Schedule II narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act is constitutional, and the Attorney General's decision not to reclassify it was not irrational or unreasonable.
-
The court's majority unnecessarily decided the issue of reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, which was not required for affirming the lower court's decision.
-
The court held that recording conversations by a participant is constitutional and that the procedural issues raised by the defendant lacked merit.
-
The dissenting opinion argues that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to improper references to his silence at the time of arrest and the trial court's prejudicial admonition regarding his right to remain silent.
-
The court held that evidence seized from a partially open briefcase in a car was admissible under the plain view doctrine, and the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for severance, suppressing evidence, or refusing lesser-included offense instructions, affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that the trial court properly refused a jury instruction on "fundamental fairness" regarding government conduct in entrapment cases, and that the defendant's conviction was not unconstitutional due to alleged government misconduct.
-
A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not a detainer under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, and therefore does not trigger the Agreement's dismissal provisions.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find predisposition, and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not cause prejudice.
-
The court held that the heroin parcel should not be suppressed, the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel, and heroin was a controlled substance at the time of the offense.
-
514 F.2d 837·
D.C. Cir.·
1975-06-16
·cited 24×
The court held that a remand for a ruling on admissibility of impeachment evidence was a meaningless exercise when the underlying federal charge had been acquitted and the D.C. offense would be subject to the same impeachment rules on retrial.
-
The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony under the co-conspirator exception was improper due to insufficient independent evidence of a conspiracy, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction for conspiracy and related offenses, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony or evidence.
-
The court held that the government fulfilled its obligation by identifying the informant and stating his unavailability, and that evidence of a subsequent drug transaction was admissible to prove conspiracy.
-
486 F.2d 333·
2d Cir.·
1973-10-09
·cited 24×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict all appellants of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that various trial errors claimed were not grounds for reversal.
-
The court held that the defendant's double jeopardy claim failed because jeopardy had not attached in the state prosecution and the federal prosecution was not a sham. The court also rejected the vindictive prosecution claim, finding no actual or presumed vindictiveness.
-
The court held that the encounter between the DEA agents and the defendant was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the identification of the cocaine was legally sufficient.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to suppress evidence and disclose the informant's identity, as probable cause for the arrest existed and disclosure was not essential for the defense.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the challenged evidence was properly admitted.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting evidence of similar acts with limiting instructions, or in allowing a co-defendant who pleaded guilty to testify, as no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest of the defendant was unconstitutional due to lack of probable cause, and the subsequent warrantless search of her hotel room and suitcase was also illegal.
-
512 F.2d 1169·
9th Cir.·
1975-02-12
·cited 23×
The court held that the police's entry into the residential driveway was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent arrest and seizure of evidence were lawful.
-
The court held that a customs search of a mailed package based on an agent's suspicion that the contents were falsely declared was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and 19 U.S.C. § 482.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Tejeda of conspiracy and that the district court did not err in admitting certain evidence or denying severance. Christian's claims regarding informant disclosure and entrapment were also rejected.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's car was lawful under the automobile exception and inventory search doctrines, and his confession was voluntary, thus affirming his conviction and sentence.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and Tabares' sentence, but remanded for resentencing Ramirez with a two-level reduction in his offense level.
-
The court held that defendants waived their sentencing guideline calculation issue by failing to raise it in the district court, and that the district court's finding that Weaver was not a minor participant was not clearly erroneous.
-
The court held that the twenty-year term of supervised release was improperly imposed and must be reconsidered in light of the Sentencing Guidelines, which mandate a term between three and five years. The court affirmed the remainder of the judgment.
-
The court held that multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) are permissible for each firearm carried during a single drug trafficking offense, but the total sentence for such convictions arising from a single offense cannot exceed five years.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the hotel room, the translated Spanish statements were admissible, the prosecutor's summation was not improper, the jury instructions were adequate, and the sentences were
-
The court held that the district court erred in admitting drug records without proper foundation and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. It also instructed the district court to vacate Lai's conspiracy conviction if his continuing criminal enterprise conviction stands.
-
The court affirmed convictions for heroin possession and witness tampering, finding no Fourth Amendment violations and sufficient evidence. It reversed the sentence for Kevin Davis, finding the district court erred in not applying the career offender guideline.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for substitute counsel without inquiry, warranting reversal of the conviction. It also held that the denial of a continuance due to a superseding indictment prejudiced the defendant, requiring reversal
-
The court held that wiretap evidence was admissible, a variance between the indictment and evidence did not prejudice substantial rights, and prosecutorial explanations for jury strikes were adequate. However, the evidence was insufficient to support Wenseslada Reyes-Moya's consp