2,534 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,907 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
An officer's subjective motive for making a traffic stop is irrelevant if the stop is objectively legal and authorized by law.
-
839 F.2d 285·
6th Cir.·
1988-02-12
·cited 48×
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.
-
808 F.2d 886·
1st Cir.·
1986-12-30
·cited 48×
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.
-
798 F.2d 380·
10th Cir.·
1986-07-29
·cited 48×
The court held that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause, the scope of the search warrant was not exceeded, the admitted evidence was properly authenticated, and co-conspirator testimony was admissible. The conviction is affirmed.
-
783 F.2d 1428·
9th Cir.·
1986-03-04
·cited 48×
The court held that Wingender and Risquez lack standing to raise Bogart's due process claim of outrageous government conduct, but remanded Bogart's case for factual findings on the government's conduct.
-
780 F.2d 804·
9th Cir.·
1986-01-14
·cited 48×
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.
-
769 F.2d 453·
8th Cir.·
1985-07-15
·cited 48×
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence of venue in Minnesota, despite the jury not explicitly finding venue, required affirmance under precedent.
-
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 district court's rulings on probable cause, factual basis for guilty pleas, and suppression motions were correct.
-
713 F.2d 627·
11th Cir.·
1983-08-29
·cited 48×
The court held that prior trial testimony of a deceased witness, admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), should not be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 solely because the jury cannot observe the witness's demeanor, especially when the testimony is essentia
-
709 F.2d 742·
1st Cir.·
1983-06-10
·cited 48×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for knowingly participating in the drug conspiracy, and that various trial errors were either not preserved or not prejudicial.
-
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.
-
660 F.2d 1070·
5th Cir.·
1981-11-12
·cited 48×
The court affirmed convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support conspiracy charges, the trial court properly handled informant disclosure, and there were no reversible Brady violations or errors in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
-
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
-
603 F.2d 506·
5th Cir.·
1979-09-26
·cited 48×
The court held that the admission of tape recordings was proper because the consenting party voluntarily agreed to the interception, and the tapes, despite some inaudible portions and translation issues, were sufficiently reliable and admissible.
-
592 F.2d 1219·
2d Cir.·
1979-02-02
·cited 48×
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.
-
590 F.2d 789·
9th Cir.·
1979-02-01
·cited 48×
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 trial judge did not err in refusing to accept a nolo contendere plea without establishing a factual basis, nor in denying motions for recusal or a new trial based on juror competency. The court also found that the admission of certain statements, evidence
-
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 evidence of a prior arrest for marijuana possession, even with an acquittal, was admissible to prove knowledge and intent in a subsequent drug possession trial.
-
545 F.2d 1309·
2d Cir.·
1976-10-18
·cited 48×
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.
-
507 F.2d 932·
8th Cir.·
1974-12-17
·cited 48×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for aiding and abetting, the use of an Allen charge was not prejudicial, and the admission of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
-
Jesus Jiminez was convicted of manufacturing and distributing marijuana after police discovered a sophisticated grow operation at his residence containing 210 plants and large quantities of packaged marijuana. Jiminez appealed on three grounds: insufficient evidence, improper adm
-
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 a defendant can be held accountable for a co-defendant's reasonably foreseeable possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, even if the defendant was unaware of the firearm.
-
734 F.2d 657·
11th Cir.·
1984-06-18
·cited 47×
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.
-
706 F.2d 321·
D.C. Cir.·
1983-04-26
·cited 47×
The court held that the warrantless search of the appellant's hotel room closet after his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, as it was neither incident to arrest nor a valid inventory search.
-
695 F.2d 78·
4th Cir.·
1982-12-07
·cited 47×
The district court's finding that the defendant was free to leave during the initial questioning was a factual determination that should be affirmed.
-
679 F.2d 187·
9th Cir.·
1982-06-08
·cited 47×
The court held that the affidavit for the search warrant was sufficient and that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure of the defendant's home.
-
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 government had a responsibility to inform the court that the appellant's prior youth offender conviction had been set aside.
-
550 F.2d 335·
5th Cir.·
1977-04-11
·cited 47×
The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was unlawful because it was not based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search of the camper was also unlawful as it lacked probable cause or consent.
-
546 F.2d 1242·
5th Cir.·
1977-02-11
·cited 47×
The court held that the trial judge did not err in restricting cross-examination or denying a continuance, and that the jury instruction regarding the appellant's refusal to answer questions was proper. However, the court reversed the contempt citation because it was not imposed
-
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.
-
527 F.2d 1356·
5th Cir.·
1976-03-03
·cited 47×
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.
-
927 F.2d 815·
5th Cir.·
1991-03-19
·cited 46×
The court held that the stop of the defendant's car was justified by traffic violations and the search of a box within the car was a valid inventory search, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
-
The quantity of marijuana is not an essential element of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute or possession with intent to distribute, and thus need not be alleged in the indictment or proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
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.
-
896 F.2d 99·
5th Cir.·
1990-03-01
·cited 46×
The court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were effective November 1, 1987, are constitutional, and that the district court properly aggregated drug quantities from prior transactions as 'relevant conduct' under the guidelines.
-
The court held that tapping a propane tank to assess its structural integrity, which could reveal the presence of non-contraband items, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, jury instructions were proper, the admission of a co-defendant's guilty plea with a limiting instruction was not reversible error, chain of custody issues did not render evidence inadmissible, sentencing o
-
876 F.2d 1344·
7th Cir.·
1989-06-09
·cited 46×
The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of a government informant, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
-
869 F.2d 372·
8th Cir.·
1989-02-23
·cited 46×
The court held that the district court erred in failing to make its own findings on an issue material to sentence enhancement and that a statute authorizing supervised release had not taken effect at the time of the offense. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were v
-
867 F.2d 759·
2d Cir.·
1989-02-07
·cited 46×
The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy, importation, and possession with intent to distribute, as mere presence at the airport and association with co-conspirators, even with a false exculpatory statement, did not prove knowi
-
The court held that expert testimony describing a drug operation's modus operandi, without directly stating whether the defendant had the requisite mental state, does not violate Fed.R.Evid. 704(b).
-
778 F.2d 899·
1st Cir.·
1985-12-02
·cited 46×
The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, held that a warrant obtained in partial reliance on observations from an illegal search, issued over 48 hours after entry, was valid.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to procedural errors in the sentencing process.