56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court affirmed Smoot's conviction but vacated the sentences of both defendants, remanding for resentencing.
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a vehicle seized for forfeiture is permissible as an inventory search, but vacated a $2 million fine because the district court failed to consider mandatory sentencing guideline factors regarding the defendant's ability to pay.
-
The court held that the May 12 warrant authorizing a covert search for photographs, without immediate seizure of tangible evidence, was lawful under the Fourth Amendment and Rule 41, and that only Villegas had standing to challenge it.
-
The court held that the district court was not required to inform the defendant of the likely sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and that it was permissible to consider drug quantities from dismissed charges in calculating the base offense level.
-
District courts must apply the Sentencing Guidelines to 'straddle crimes'—continuing offenses that began before November 1, 1987, and continued after that date.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm during a drug offense, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts or co-conspirat
-
The court held that the admission of prior convictions and bad acts was proper, the denial of reopening evidence was within the trial court's discretion, joinder and severance of charges and defendants were appropriate, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute, and that the jury instructions were proper.
-
A defendant who fails to pay for a hotel room and whose luggage is lawfully taken by the hotel loses any legitimate expectation of privacy in that luggage, even if arrested. Statements by a coconspirator identifying a source and reassuring a listener are considered made in furthe
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, but reversed the conviction for unlawfully carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony due to insu
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that evidence of real estate transactions was admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the refusal of a multiple conspiracy instruction was proper, and the designation as a Special Dan
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding entrapment, the denial of a co-defendant's entrapment defense, the instruction on undercover agents, the submission of extrinsic evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court held that the retention of the appellant's ticket and driver's license by the officers constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, rendering the subsequent consent to search involuntary and the evidence inadmissible.
-
The court held that the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights were not violated, and his conviction and enhanced sentence were supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedure.
-
-
The stop of the defendant and his subsequent arrest were reasonable and based upon probable cause.
-
The court held that the repeated association of vehicles during a drug transaction, the late hour, rural setting, and the defendant's attempted flight provided sufficient probable cause for his arrest, and the contraband found in plain view was lawfully seized.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, as the possibility of enhanced punishment for future offenses is a collateral consequence not requiring explicit advisement under Rule 11.
-
The court held that the arrest was lawful because the informant's tip, corroborated by independent police work and the suspect's suspicious behavior, established probable cause.
-
The court held that the government's actions did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that the trial was otherwise fair.
-
The court held that evidence seized under a warrant, though later invalidated for lack of particularity, was admissible under the Leon exception due to the officers' reasonable reliance on the warrant. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for usin
-
The court held that a wife's apparent authority to consent to a search of a room does not extend to closed containers within that room, and that a defendant's waiver of jury trial, while procedurally deficient, was knowing and intelligent and did not affect substantial rights.
-
Anticipatory search warrants are not unconstitutional per se and can be valid if supported by probable cause that contraband will be present when the warrant is executed, and if their execution conditions are clear and met.
-
The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant and his luggage, and that the drug courier profile testimony was relevant to the jury's determination of guilt and chain of custody.
-
The court held that searches at the Atlanta airport were conducted at the functional equivalent of the border and thus required no reasonable suspicion, and that statements made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible under the co-conspirator exceptio
-
The court held that the denial of the defendant's motions to suppress was proper, affirming the conviction. The court found no constitutional violations in the statute, the consent search, the Franks hearing, or the Rule 41 violation.
-
The court held that the totality of circumstances, including an informant's tip and corroborating surveillance, established probable cause for the warrantless search of the vehicle, and that post-arrest statements were admissible.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that while some evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial remarks were questionable, they constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence, and the sentencing departure was justified.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful, the delay in indictment did not violate constitutional rights, and the double jeopardy claim was not supported by evidence.
-
The court held that denying a defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on their silence during a presentence interview does not violate the Fifth Amendment, and that disparate sentences between co-defendants are permissible if they are not similarly situated.
-
A district court cannot impose a sentence below the statutory minimum established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 by relying on mitigating circumstances, even if those circumstances would justify a sentence below the Sentencing Guidelines minimum.
-
The court held that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines' enhancement for firearm possession during a drug offense is constitutional as applied, and that sufficient evidence supported the enhancement and the jury instructions were adequate.
-
The court held that recorded conversations between co-conspirators were admissible as non-hearsay, drug paraphernalia was relevant to the conspiracy charge, and the search of an arrestee's wallet was a valid search incident to arrest.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior conviction, blank Social Security cards, and tax return, nor was the evidence insufficient for conviction.
-
The court held that the admission of evidence concerning traces of cocaine in the defendant's bag was proper impeachment, the search under the mattress was within the scope of consent, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the enhanced sentencing provisions w
-
The court held that the CCE statute does not require the jury to unanimously agree on the identities of the five subordinates, and that the indictment for conspiracy to impede the IRS was sufficiently specific.
-
The court held that the district court should have excluded the out-of-court statements unless the government granted use immunity to the declarant, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
-
The court held that the arrest warrant for Techau had probable cause, and evidence seized incident to arrest was admissible under the good faith exception. The court affirmed convictions for Techau and Le, but reversed Einfeldt's conviction for insufficient evidence of attempt.
-
803 F.2d 1505·
9th Cir.·
1986-11-07
·cited 40×
The court held that the troopers lacked reasonable suspicion to seize Erwin's day pack, as the observed characteristics were too general and did not distinguish him from innocent travelers.
-
The court held that the government's failure to provide discovery of a defendant's wallet contents violated Rule 16, and this violation was not harmless error, requiring reversal of that defendant's conviction.
-
The court held that the search warrant was valid, probable cause existed for the arrest, and the denial of the motion to disclose informants' identities was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's improper comments on the defendants' failure to testify did not warrant a new trial given the strong evidence, the curative instruction, and the isolated nature of the misconduct. The court also rejected other grounds for appeal.
-
The court held that the government's conduct was not outrageous, there was sufficient evidence of possession, and evidentiary rulings were not reversible error. The convictions are affirmed.
-
The court held that the defendant was lawfully subjected to a Terry stop based on reasonable suspicion and that probable cause existed for his arrest, affirming his conviction.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding the giving of Miranda rights, refusing to disclose an informant's identity, or denying a motion for severance.
-
The court held that prosecutorial comments during closing argument were not improper or prejudicial, and that defense counsel cannot argue jury nullification.
-
The court held that a conspiracy conviction is a lesser included offense of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, requiring vacation of the conspiracy sentence due to double jeopardy. Other convictions were affirmed.
-
The court held that the search warrant was properly issued based on probable cause derived from DEA investigation and a narcotics detection dog's alert, and that the search of the handbags was within the scope of the warrant. It also held that while some hearsay testimony was imp
-
The court held that appellants abandoned the suitcase containing cocaine, thus relinquishing a reasonable expectation of privacy and lacking standing to challenge the warrantless search.
-
The court held that the admission of a false driver's license was not plain error and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for importation and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.