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 the initial seizure constituted an arrest without probable cause, and subsequent consent to search was tainted by the illegal arrest, requiring suppression of all evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed because his challenges regarding jury selection, sufficiency of evidence, and multiplicitous counts lack merit.
-
The court held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the search of the car, and that even if they had standing, the consent to search was voluntary and not the fruit of an illegal seizure. The evidence was also sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the tape of a conversation was admissible because it was sufficiently authenticated by circumstantial evidence and also admissible as a co-conspirator's statement, and that the prosecutor's remarks and the jury's use of transcripts did not constitute prejudici
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial court's intervention prevented reversible error from the prosecutor's improper rebuttal argument.
-
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a death threat was proper, as it was relevant to show consciousness of guilt and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
-
The court held that the strip search of the defendant at the border was lawful because it was supported by reasonable suspicion, and therefore the contraband evidence obtained was admissible.
-
The court held that even if hearsay evidence and jury instructions were improperly admitted, the errors were harmless due to overwhelming other evidence of guilt. The evidence was also sufficient to support Poitier's conviction for conspiracy.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances did not establish probable cause for the search of the vehicle's trunk, nor was consent to search given.
-
The court held that the deputy marshal's investigatory stop, pat-down for weapons, and subsequent searches of the appellant's person and briefcase were lawful under the Fourth Amendment.
-
A defendant is subject to U.S. narcotics laws even if a foreign trafficker, provided the controlled substance is brought within U.S. territorial jurisdiction and there is intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions to suppress evidence, disclose an informant's identity, or in applying sentence enhancements, and that the federal forfeiture statute supersedes state homestead exemptions.
-
The court held that retaining a driver's license during questioning constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of evidence obtained thereafter.
-
The court held that a barn physically separate from a home, located in an open field, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's curtilage doctrine, and that the area surrounding such a barn is not protected as a 'business curtilage.' The court also found that the district court'
-
The court held that the sentencing guidelines' disparate treatment of crack cocaine versus powdered cocaine does not violate due process or equal protection rights, as there is a rational basis for the distinction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Christian for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to a drug offense and affirmed Friend's sentence, finding the district court did not err in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
A firearm can be considered available for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) if its proximity to the defendant supports an inference that it emboldened him, even if the defendant could not personally access it due to disability, provided confederates could retrieve it.
-
The court held that the district court did not clearly err in relying on an officer's estimate of unrecovered cocaine to determine the base offense level for sentencing.
-
The court held that the omission of the informant's familial relationship in the warrant affidavit was not a Franks violation and that taped conversations were admissible coconspirator statements.
-
The court held that the weight of damp marijuana, including moisture, is the correct basis for sentencing, and a firearm found in the home during drug offenses justifies an upward sentence adjustment.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in determining the quantity of cocaine involved in the conspiracy based on a ledger found in the defendant's bedroom, nor did it violate the defendant's right to notice.
-
The court held that Anthony Ruiz Del Vizo's arrest was supported by probable cause, and therefore the denial of his motion to suppress evidence was correct.
-
The court held that a five-month delay in receiving a trial transcript did not violate due process without a showing of prejudice, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, as it only established a buyer-seller relationship.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for possession of cocaine, but sufficient for conspiracy and use of a communication facility to commit a narcotics felony.
-
The court held that the defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court erred in departing downward from the sentencing guidelines based on factors adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the consent to search was voluntary, and the sentencing guideline applications were not erroneous.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation.
-
The court held that discretionary refusals to depart from sentencing guidelines are not appealable, and affirmed the conviction and sentence on other grounds.
-
The court held that the convictions and sentences were valid, and that the government's cross-appeal regarding sentencing under the Guidelines was procedurally barred due to a failure to object.
-
A jury's brief, inadvertent observation of a defendant in handcuffs outside the courtroom does not automatically require reversal if the trial court takes appropriate curative measures and the defendant fails to affirmatively show actual prejudice.
-
The court held that while the highway search was not a valid search incident to arrest, it was lawful because the defendant voluntarily consented to it.
-
The court held that evidence of subsequent marijuana transactions was admissible to show predisposition for cocaine charges, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. However, the imposition of a supervised release term was improper.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, admitting evidence from a garbage search, admitting expert testimony, or denying a motion for a new trial.
-
Acquittal on importation charges does not necessarily mean the jury decided issues of fact essential to possession with intent to distribute charges, thus collateral estoppel does not bar retrial on those counts.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's rejection of the entrapment defense and no due process violation.
-
The court held that co-conspirator hearsay statements were admissible against a defendant if independent evidence showed membership in the conspiracy, and that cumulative sentences could be imposed for simultaneous possession of different controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 8
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's residence was justified by exigent circumstances and that the search warrant was not overbroad. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing.
-
The court held that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the observed bulge, suspicious behavior, and drug courier profile, making the subsequent search incident to a valid arrest constitutional.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, that the defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the use of standby counsel, and that the limitation on the interpreter, while an error, was harmless.
-
The court held that the investigatory detention and protective search of the vehicle's passenger compartment were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent consent to search the seized box was voluntary.
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the prior indictment without prejudice, allowing for reprosecution under the Speedy Trial Act.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered into an agreement to commit a conspiracy, reversing her conviction.
-
The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a proper cautionary instruction regarding a co-defendant's midtrial acquittal, this error was not reversible. The conviction is affirmed.
-
The court held that while the search was not a valid extended border search, the initial stop was justified by reasonable suspicion and the subsequent search was based on probable cause.
-
The court held that the agents had reasonable suspicion for the initial investigatory stop and that the subsequent stop, though second, did not exceed the bounds of an investigatory stop and was not an arrest without probable cause. The attempted search was valid as incident to a
-
The court held that the agents had probable cause to arrest Ayres, and his subsequent statements at the police station were admissible despite the suppression of earlier statements made at the breachway. The court also found no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or jury view
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless re-entry of the residence, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for conspiracy, possession, and distribution of cocaine.
-
The court held that the stop of the truck was constitutional based on reasonable suspicion, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, but insufficient for the conspiracy conviction.
-
Smith and Wagner appealed their convictions for possession of over 100 pounds of marijuana with firearms, challenging the denial of their motion to suppress evidence obtained through wiretap intercepts. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the first wiretap valid and rejec
-
The court held that the United States had jurisdiction over the stateless vessel and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for drug offenses.