56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,495 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that stopping vehicles at a permanent checkpoint for citizenship checks and searching a vehicle based on the odor of marijuana are constitutional.
-
The court held that the defendants' panicked flight and abandonment of the vehicle, coupled with their physical condition upon apprehension, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to infer joint possession of the marijuana found in the trunk.
-
The majority erred in holding the affidavit sufficient to justify the search warrant.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no merit in the appellant's assigned errors regarding voir dire, evidence preservation, multiplicity of charges, and jury instructions.
-
The court affirmed the defendants' convictions for importation and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, finding no reversible error.
-
The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage violated his Fourth Amendment rights, requiring reversal of the drug possession conviction, but affirmed the conviction for assaulting an officer, as the arrest was lawful despite being based on evidence from an unlawful s
-
The court held that the defendant's alibi defense was irrelevant to the conspiracy charge, and the concurrent sentence doctrine rendered the alibi instruction issue moot for the substantive offense.
-
The court held that a request to see a foreign consul is not equivalent to a request for counsel under Miranda, and that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt to sustain a conviction.
-
The court held that the admission of certain testimony and evidence was proper, and any errors were either harmless or not plain error.
-
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was lawful due to exigent circumstances, even though the vehicle was unoccupied at the time.
-
The court held that the schoolyard statute applies when a defendant possesses drugs with intent to distribute them somewhere, even if the distribution itself does not occur within the 1,000-foot zone. The court also held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence o
-
A defendant's conviction for conspiracy is affirmed if evidence shows knowledge of the collective venture, but the sentence must be recalculated if prior conduct was not known or reasonably foreseeable.
-
The court held that while the prosecution's questioning of a defendant regarding an accident report was improper and lacked a good faith factual basis, it did not constitute reversible error or plain error given the totality of the evidence. The court also found the abbreviated P
-
The court held that the mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine offenses does not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause, and that a conspiracy conviction can stand despite the acquittal of a co-conspirator.
-
The court held that while the use of drug courier profile testimony as substantive evidence of guilt was improper, the error was harmless given the substantial independent evidence supporting the conviction.
-
The court held that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act by improperly extending the indictment period and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing reprosecution without prejudice.
-
The court held that video surveillance of a backyard, even if partially visible from public areas, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant, and that the government met the statutory requirements for obtaining such a warrant.
-
The court should not have reached the issue of whether federal or state law governs the validity of a state search warrant in a joint investigation, as the warrant is valid under both standards and the officers relied on it in good faith.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the admission of testimony regarding a radio conversation was not prejudicial, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the sentence imposed did not violate due process.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the Hobbs Act charges were properly brought, severance was not required, evidence was admissible, prosecutorial comments were permissible, and double jeopardy did not bar the substantive charges.
-
The court held that while statements made after Miranda warnings and before counsel's assistance were inadmissible, their admission was harmless error because similar admissible statements were introduced. The court also found the evidence sufficient and the prosecutor's argument
-
The court held that the officers' approach to the defendant's car was not an unlawful seizure, and the subsequent pat-down search and seizure of cocaine were justified by reasonable suspicion and probable cause, respectively. The court also rejected the defendant's speedy trial c
-
Illegally obtained statements may be used for impeachment, and a deliberate ignorance jury instruction is permissible when facts support it.
-
The court held that collateral estoppel does not bar retrial on substantive drug distribution counts after an acquittal on a conspiracy charge, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and for using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
-
The court held that the joinder of perjury counts with conspiracy counts was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification was not an abuse of discretion.
-
Vivian Cacho pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import cocaine and was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment. The district court properly refused downward adjustments based on her allegedly minor role as a courier and her status as mother of four young children, as the Guidelines do n
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilty for possessing and conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of drug possession and conspiracy, that the prosecutor's closing arguments were not improper, and that the denial of the motion to suppress and the sentencing enhancement were correct.
-
The court held that under the Sentencing Guidelines, the plain and ordinary meaning of "plant" includes marijuana cuttings with root balls, and that the district court did not err in counting them as plants for sentencing purposes.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction, the evidence was properly admitted, the traffic stop was not pretextual, the search warrant was valid, and the sentencing enhancement was appropriate.
-
A district court's refusal to depart downward from a Guideline sentence based on a mistaken belief that it lacks the power to do so, absent a government motion, is appealable. The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of possession and that a downward departu
-
The court held that the district court did not err in adjusting the appellant's base offense level for a managerial role based on the purity of the drugs and the quantity involved.
-
The court affirmed convictions for RICO and other offenses, finding no merit in the appellants' numerous claims of error, including double jeopardy, insufficient interstate commerce nexus, and improper evidentiary or sentencing rulings.
-
The court concurred that evidence seized under a warrant, though potentially overbroad in scope, was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
-
The court should affirm the district court's sentencing enhancements for the defendant's role as a supervisor and possession of dangerous weapons.
-
Consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are impermissible for multiple firearms involved in a single drug trafficking offense. The court also affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the machine gun charge and the search warrant's validity.
-
The court held that a defendant's explicit denial of ownership of a suitcase, despite its presence, constitutes abandonment, forfeiting any Fourth Amendment protection against its search.
-
The court affirmed the district court's sentencing determination, finding that the two-level enhancement for firearm possession was appropriate and that the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not clearly erroneous.
-
The dissent argues that the majority erred by not applying the Leon good faith exception to cure the taint of evidence obtained during an invalid detention, and that reasonable suspicion existed for the initial stop.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's sentence, holding that his constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines were foreclosed by precedent and that the district court did not err in refusing to reduce his offense level for a minor role or in imposing a special assessment.
-
The court held that for drug distribution offenses committed during the 'hiatus period' under the 1984 version of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), ADAA § 1004 preserved the preexisting special parole requirements, making it obligatory.
-
The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent questioning of the defendant did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bag.
-
555 So. 2d 1210·
Fla.·
1989-12-07
·cited 20×
The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of both delivery and possession with intent to sell of the same cocaine based on a pre-July 1, 1988 incident, because the statutory amendment allowing separate convictions for these offenses does not apply retroa
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony about a drug ledger, excluding impeachment testimony, allowing testimony in Spanish with an interpreter, and denying a motion to merge possession and distribution counts.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's identity, that defendants lacked standing to challenge certain aspects of a sentencing statute, and that a firearms conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) can be based on a co
-
The court held that the vessel was not stateless and therefore not subject to United States jurisdiction, requiring reversal of the convictions.
-
The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by giving a supplemental jury instruction on conscious avoidance of knowledge, even after closing arguments, as the evidence supported the charge and the jury's inquiry necessitated it.
-
The court held that the five-and-a-quarter-hour detention of a Federal Express package, based on reasonable suspicion and culminating in a positive drug sniff, was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.