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 defendant's consent to accompany the agent to an office was not voluntary, rendering his subsequent arrest illegal and the discovered cocaine inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of government inducement to warrant an entrapment jury instruction and that the jury charge on aiding and abetting was adequate. The court also found that the denial of access to the informant's address, whil
-
Denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is an appealable final decision, and the government bears the burden of proving separate offenses by a preponderance of the evidence once the defendant makes a non-frivolous showing.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other drug dealings, refusing an evidentiary hearing on wiretapping, or denying dismissal for speedy trial violations.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the admission of a prior conviction was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court affirmed convictions, finding all appellate arguments to be without merit, including challenges to evidence admissibility, discovery rules, indictment duplicity, and jury instructions.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's car was valid under exceptions for searches incident to arrest and probable cause, that possession with intent to distribute is a valid predicate offense for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and that th
-
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove a defendant's predisposition in entrapment cases, except in limited circumstances to rebut specific assertions of government misconduct.
-
The court held that agents' eavesdropping by pressing an ear to a connecting door did not violate the Fourth Amendment, arrests were based on probable cause, and a warrantless entry into a hotel room, though illegal, did not require reversal of convictions.
-
The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause for every named probable converser in a wiretap application, and that an innocent, immaterial misstatement in an affidavit does not invalidate a wiretap order. The court reversed Davenport's conviction for f
-
The court held that non-electronic eavesdropping from an adjacent motel room does not violate the Fourth Amendment, but reversed the possession conviction due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and distribution convictions, the search warrant for the premises was valid, and the government's failure to disclose all details of a witness's deal was harmless error.
-
The court held that statements of a co-conspirator, even if hearsay, are admissible if made in furtherance of the conspiracy and if independent evidence establishes the conspiracy and the declarant's and defendant's connection to it, and do not violate the Confrontation Clause if
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to transfer venue, denying the motion for severance, admitting evidence seized under a warrant, applying the sentencing guidelines, or in its factual determinations regarding sentencing enhancements and base of
-
The dissenting judge believes the warrantless protective sweep of the apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances and that evidence seized should be excluded.
-
The court held that a canine sniff of the exterior of luggage does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and the positive alert provided probable cause for a search warrant.
-
The court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding of knowledge for the drug charges and that the 'deliberate ignorance' jury instruction was proper. The conviction for unlawful use of a passport and visa was also affirmed.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was sufficient evidence for aiding and abetting, the prosecutor's arguments were proper or invited error, and the sentencing provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act were constitutional.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's residence, nor was the trial court's active participation in questioning witnesses erroneous.
-
The court held that excluding the defendant and the public from a suppression hearing, except for the limited portion concerning secret profile criteria, was plain error. Additionally, the trial judge's jury instructions were so deficient as to constitute plain error.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants, but vacated and remanded for resentencing for some, finding no error in wiretap evidence, transcript use, or most evidentiary rulings, but remanding for resentencing consistent with guidelines.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying Poliak's motion for an evidentiary hearing on his alleged plea agreement, nor in denying Laskowski's motion to suppress statements made after his arrest, nor in admitting evidence of Laskowski's prior marijuana dealing
-
The court held that a pretextual stop is unconstitutional if a reasonable officer would not have made the stop in the absence of the invalid purpose, and that the scope of a traffic stop is limited to its initial justification unless reasonable suspicion of other crimes exists.
-
A passenger train sleeping compartment is analogous to a hotel room for Fourth Amendment purposes, and a search without probable cause and a warrant violates a passenger's legitimate expectation of privacy.
-
The court held that the government's use of a confidential informant did not constitute overreaching, evidence of prior bad acts was admissible, taped conversations were properly admitted, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and a variance between the indictment a
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing improper cross-examination of character witnesses and by displaying hostility towards defense counsel, which collectively deprived the appellants of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin. The court also found that the admission of certain evidence and the prosecutor's
-
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants for conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the '100 to 1 ratio' of cocaine to cocaine base in the Sentencing Guidelines is rationally related to Congress's objective of protecting public welfare and does not violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause or the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual pu
-
The court held that the search of the vessel was a valid extended border search, and the admission of prior acts evidence against Alfonso was an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the 'reasonable doubt' test, not the 'hypothesis of innocence' test, is the proper standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases.
-
The court held that the magistrate erred in finding that voluntary consent automatically purged the taint of an illegal seizure, and that the issue of taint requires further factual findings. The court affirmed the finding of voluntary consent to accompany officers and to the sea
-
The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and possession, and that the admission of extrinsic evidence and prosecutorial comments did not constitute reversible error.
-
The court held that the initial detention and subsequent arrest were based on reasonable suspicion and not a pretext for a search, and that the search warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause. Expert testimony was properly admitted.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the rental car, the detention was lawful, consent to search was voluntary, and statements made after invoking counsel were admissible because the defendant initiated further communication.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions for drug offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or denying severance motions, but that multiple convictions for simultaneous possession and receipt of firearms were improper.
-
The court affirmed most convictions but vacated sentences for multiple firearm offenses for Hicks and A.J. Smith, remanding for resentencing.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that the wiretap affidavits sufficiently demonstrated the necessity of electronic surveillance.
-
The court held that the police conduct, involving drawing guns and ordering occupants out of a vehicle without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, constituted an arrest rather than a permissible investigatory stop.
-
632 F.2d 978·
2d Cir.·
1980-09-15
·cited 74×
The court held that the agents had sufficient justification to execute an arrest warrant in the appellants' home and that the subsequent search was lawful. The court also affirmed the district court's refusal to disclose the identities of informants.
-
Incriminating statements volunteered by a defendant during booking, after being advised of Miranda rights and requesting an attorney, are admissible if not made in response to interrogation about criminal activity. The admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement is permissi
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Elena Vila and Johnny Rivera for drug offenses. The court held that while the government committed a discovery violation by disclosing Rivera's statement about suitcase ownership late, it did not prejudice his substantial rights. T
-
The court held that the defendant's detention at the border patrol checkpoint was lawful, his consent to search was voluntary, and the search did not exceed the scope of his consent.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction but remanded for resentencing, finding the district court improperly departed from the Sentencing Guidelines based on co-conspirators' weapon possession.
-
The court held that the admission of William Bennett's prior drug smuggling convictions was proper under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403, and that the use of a single interpreter for multiple Spanish-speaking defendants did not violate their statutory or constitutional rights. The court
-
The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, affirmed the sentence enhancement on Count I, while the dissent argues that the jury's not guilty verdict on Count III, combined with the jury instructions, means no finding was made as to the amount of cocaine, thus preclud
-
The court held that the erroneous exclusion of business records and the government's failure to disclose an informant's whereabouts constituted reversible error.
-
The court held that the district court erred by admitting significant portions of the undercover officer's testimony, which constituted inadmissible hearsay, and that this error was prejudicial, requiring reversal.
-
The court held that admitting evidence of a defendant's unrelated, post-crime act to prove predisposition for entrapment is improper and requires reversal.