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 affidavit submitted to the magistrate, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, provided sufficient reliable facts to establish probable cause for the search warrant.
-
The court held that the district court erred in refusing to allow the deposition of an unarrested co-defendant and that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel warranted a remand for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's artificial leg was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that sufficient evidence existed to prove the intent required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1791.
-
The court held that the warrantless seizure and search of the Buick was justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, based on probable cause and exigent circumstances.
-
-
The court held that the appellant's arrest was supported by probable cause, the evidence seized was admissible, and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
-
The dissenting judge holds that the DEA agents lacked probable cause to arrest Swayne, making the seizure of evidence and his inculpatory statement inadmissible.
-
The court held that the Coast Guard's stop and boarding of the vessel were lawful, and the discovery of marijuana in plain view provided probable cause for further search. The court also held that Miranda warnings were not required during the initial questioning and that a minor
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the jury instructions were adequate, and the imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate double jeopardy.
-
The court affirmed the decision, finding that the Coast Guard's boarding and subsequent discovery of marijuana did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions for conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and possession of cocaine, but that the special parole term was improperly imposed.
-
The court should have suppressed evidence obtained from Deggendorf's involuntary detention.
-
The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not fatally defective and provided sufficient probable cause for its issuance.
-
The grant of a new trial in a § 2255 proceeding is a final, appealable order, and the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant conspired with at least one other person.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, refusing a new trial based on alleged Brady violations, finding the evidence sufficient for conspiracy convictions, admitting expert testimony, refusing a specific jury instruction,
-
The court held that the Border Patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and that the subsequent search of the trunk was justified by both consent and probable cause.
-
The warrantless search of a closed backpack found within an automobile, even with probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment.
-
Sentences within statutory limits for drug offenses are not cruel and unusual punishment unless there are extraordinary circumstances demonstrating gross disproportionality to the crime.
-
-
The court held that the officer's stop of the defendant was justified by reasonable suspicion, making the seizure of evidence permissible.
-
The court held that the appellant's incriminating statements were admissible, the delay in presentment was not prejudicial, and the district court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of Count IV.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting codefendant statements, or finding sufficient evidence for conviction.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's vehicle was constitutional because the odor of marijuana provided probable cause.
-
The court held that the plain view of marijuana debris in the truck bed provided probable cause for the search, and the stop at the permanent checkpoint was permissible.
-
The court held that the search and seizure were constitutional and the defendant was properly identified.
-
-
The court held that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 by not adequately determining the defendants understood the nature of the charges and that there was a factual basis for their guilty pleas.
-
The admission of a chemist's report containing an agent's hearsay notation linking a defendant to drug distribution was reversible error, but the denial of a continuance for a witness was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the government failed to demonstrate a valid border search under pre-Almeida-Sanchez standards, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance and admitting expert testimony.
-
The court held that the defendants' prosecution was valid despite the timing of the controlled substance schedule republication, and that probable cause existed for the warrantless search of their automobile.
-
The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause and that the statute 21 U.S.C. § 848 was not unconstitutionally vague.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the premises was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that a search conducted by a roving Border Patrol without probable cause or consent, at a location not at the border or its functional equivalent, violates the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause because it failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the informant's basis of knowledge.
-
The court held that the customs agents had a founded suspicion to stop the vehicle and probable cause to search it based on the odor of marijuana and appellant's suspicious behavior.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in withholding the informant's identity and that the jury instructions were not a basis for reversal.
-
153 So. 3d 192·
Fla.·
2014-12-11
·cited 15×
The Florida Supreme Court authorized amended standard jury instructions for drug and contraband offenses following prior decisions on drug trafficking crimes and constitutional issues with knowledge elements. The Court declined to authorize certain proposed amendments treating "k
-
755 So. 2d 708·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1999-08-04
·cited 15×
In a probation revocation proceeding, appellant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during a police stop and vehicle search. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop appellant
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the car was lawful based on consent, the refusal of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was not error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that newly discovered impeachment evidence, without more, does not warrant a new trial, and that challenges to the constitutional validity of prior convictions, other than Gideon violations, are generally not reviewable at a federal sentencing hearing.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony, that the Allen charge was properly given, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction. However, it found that admitting officers' opinion testimony on a witness's truthfulness
-
The court held that even if expert testimony was admissible, the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines range, and affirmed the conviction in all other respects.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting testimony, or refusing a downward sentencing departure, and that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence to establish a RICO enterprise and convict appellants of substantive narcotics offenses, and rejecting claims of pre-indictment delay prejudice and abuse of discretion in refusing jury testimony.
-
The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the appellants knowingly possessed marijuana with intent to distribute and conspired to do so.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding a statement offered to show the defendant's state of mind, as it was not hearsay when offered for that purpose.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to suppress evidence from the plane search as untimely, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for deposing foreign witnesses.
-
A trial court has broad discretion to reject a guilty plea, even after initial acceptance, if it finds no factual basis or if the defendant protests innocence.