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 warrantless electronic interception of a conversation in a stranger's apartment, under suspicious circumstances and with no reasonable expectation of privacy, was not illegal under the Fourth Amendment or the relevant statute. The court also found sufficie
-
The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, finding sufficient evidence and proper procedures.
-
The court held that giving a "Jewell" instruction on deliberate avoidance was error because the evidence pointed to actual knowledge, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the prosecutor's misstatement about a co-defendant's indictment was improper but harmless du
-
The court affirmed all of appellant's convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the sufficiency of the indictment.
-
The court held that the arrests, searches, and convictions were lawful, rejecting numerous challenges to the proceedings.
-
The court held that even if the initial arrest was illegal, the evidence seized was admissible because the defendant's subsequent flight and struggle constituted a new, distinct crime for which he could be lawfully arrested, and the search was incident to that lawful arrest.
-
The court held that the examination of the inside of the paper bag was legal and that Arkansas v. Sanders should not be applied retroactively.
-
A prior jury verdict of guilty, where judgment and sentence have not yet been entered, is admissible for impeachment purposes if the defendant has the opportunity to explain its legal status.
-
The court held that the cocaine was lawfully seized despite potential non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3109 because an undercover officer was lawfully present and had constructive possession of the contraband. The court also held that the trial judge properly refused to instruct t
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that DeLeon's other contentions lacked merit.
-
The court held that admitting evidence of prior similar acts to prove intent and knowledge was reversible error when the defense had unequivocally conceded those elements.
-
The court held that the government's failure to disclose the appellant's inculpatory oral statement prior to trial was harmless error and did not warrant a mistrial.
-
The court held that the conviction of Mario Sandoval should be reversed due to plain error in failing to provide a cautionary jury instruction regarding the uncorroborated testimony of a paid informant, while affirming the convictions of Guillermo Sandoval and Joe Garcia due to s
-
The court held that the rent receipts were improperly admitted as hearsay and that the government failed to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or juror issues.
-
-
The court argues that a single, deferential standard of review, specifically the 'clearly erroneous' rule, should be applied to all determinations of probable cause, regardless of who made the initial determination (magistrate, judge, or jury).
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, that the district court did not err in denying severance or motions to suppress, that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless, and that sentencing was proper.
-
The court held that the roadblock stop, subsequent detention, and vehicle search were lawful, and the trial court did not err in refusing to admit the co-defendant's attorney's testimony.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest Mahdi and reasonable suspicion to detain Willis, and that the subsequent arrests and evidence seizures were constitutional.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the suitcase by disclaiming ownership, and the initial encounter in Atlanta was not a seizure, while the subsequent encounter in Detroit was a permissible investigatory stop based on reasonable s
-
The court held that the admission of DEA agent testimony regarding general investigative procedures was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, warranting reversal of the convictions.
-
The court held that the appellants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the search and seizure, and the district court did not err in denying the motion for use immunity.
-
The court held that the unauthorized sale of government information constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
-
The court held that the hearsay statement was improperly admitted under the coconspirator exception as to Dixon.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying David's motions to suppress evidence obtained from a beeper clone and telephone intercepts, and that the evidence was sufficient to support David's conviction for continuing criminal enterprise and Yarden's convictions
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the indictment was not multiplicitous, severance was not required, the display of cocaine was proper, expert testimony was admissible, and there was sufficient evidence for the convictions.
-
The court did not definitively rule on whether co-conspirator hearsay alone can support a conviction, reserving the issue for later.
-
The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenges to the sentencing statute were foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent, and the trial court did not err in its application of the sentencing guidelines regarding organizer status or acceptance of responsibility.
-
An officer's subjective motive for making a traffic stop is irrelevant if the stop is objectively legal and authorized by law.
-
Statements made during investigatory detentions in airport security rooms, where the suspect voluntarily accompanied officers and reasonably believed they were not confined, do not require Miranda warnings.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict the appellant of aiding and abetting the importation of controlled substances on January 14, 1985, as the circumstantial evidence did not establish his intent to make the venture succeed.
-
The court held that the defendant's evidence was insufficient to create a jury question on entrapment, as the informant was not a government agent and the defendant showed predisposition.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's rulings regarding the Speedy Trial Act, disclosure of a confidential informant, exclusion of evidence, or jury instructions.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in considering certain hearsay statements as 'verbal acts' to satisfy the Geaney standard for Cicale's conviction.
-
The court held that the Miranda warnings given were adequate and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
-
The court held that the search warrants were validly issued based on sufficient probable cause, the execution of the warrants did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109 due to exigent circumstances, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to reveal the informant's identity
-
The court held that wiretap tapes obtained by state officers, even if not sealed according to stricter state law, are admissible in a federal prosecution if obtained in good faith compliance with prevailing norms and federal law governs admissibility.
-
The court held that the search and seizure of evidence from the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the admission of TECS cards was proper.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find constructive possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not err in excluding a witness's testimony based on his Fifth Amendment privilege or in denying a motion for a new trial.
-
The court held that the evidence established that the defendant 'used a firearm to commit a felony' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) by using guns as part of a security operation for drug distribution, and that there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession of cocaine.
-
The court held that the evidence was not the fruit of an illegal detention and that the statutory sentencing disparity for cocaine base does not violate due process.
-
The court held that while the prosecutor's argument regarding the absence of an alibi witness was improper, it did not constitute plain error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the convictions.
-
The district court's finding that the defendant was free to leave during the initial questioning was a factual determination that should be affirmed.
-
The dissent argues that a sentencing judge improperly relied on their own evaluation of a prior acquittal's merits, violating due process.
-
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of government witnesses regarding a confidential informant's past activities, nor in refusing requested jury charges on knowledge and specific intent.
-
The court held that the exclusion of the informant's statement was proper, the speedy trial claims were not meritorious, but the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, finding the upward adjustment for role in the offense was improperly applied.
-
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain the defendant's luggage for a narcotics-detection dog sniff, and the initial encounter was consensual, thus not implicating the Fourth Amendment.