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 search warrant's description of 'cocaine paraphernalia' was sufficiently particular and that the search of the premises did not exceed the warrant's scope. The admission of hearsay statements and testimony about a seized gun was also deemed proper.
-
The court held that bringing two suspects together, even with inconsistent prior statements, does not constitute custodial interrogation under Miranda unless police actions are designed to elicit an incriminating response. The court also held that newly discovered evidence of a w
-
A district judge's consideration of parole eligibility guidelines in sentencing does not constitute an abuse of discretion or a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, even if the judge's understanding of those guidelines is later found to be mistaken.
-
The court held that the trial court's findings regarding the credibility of law enforcement officers were not clearly erroneous, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute coc
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for importation and conspiracy to import cocaine, and that any error in the jury instruction regarding importation did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's motor home, and the subsequent smell of marihuana justified a search.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence because reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and consent justified the search, and the trial judge's questioning did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle and its contents, that sufficient evidence supported his conviction for constructive possession of cocaine, and that the jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence, disclose the informant's identity, limit cross-examination, or admit the grey notebook into evidence.
-
The court held that the collective knowledge of the arresting officers was sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrantless arrest, and the district court's finding of probable cause was not clearly erroneous.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant the opportunity to impeach a key witness, overruling objections to jury instructions, admitting co-conspirator statements, admitting evidence of weapons, or denying a motion for acquittal.
-
The court held that the admission of testimony barred by collateral estoppel was not harmless error, requiring reversal. However, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar the retrial on conspiracy counts.
-
The court held that tape-recorded statements of a co-defendant were admissible under the statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule, and that the trial court did not err in admitting enhanced tapes, transcripts, or in its discovery rulings.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned the automobile and its contents, including the briefcase, by fleeing the scene of a car fire and making no effort to retrieve them, thus forfeiting any reasonable expectation of privacy.
-
The court held that inconsistent jury verdicts in a criminal trial, even in a conspiracy case, may be upheld based on Supreme Court precedent.
-
A defendant convicted of a specified narcotics offense is presumed to be a danger to the community, and must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they are not likely to flee or pose a danger if released pending sentencing.
-
The court held that statements implicating the defendant as a co-conspirator were properly admitted under FRE 801(d)(2)(E) and that a flight jury instruction was also proper.
-
The court held that even without relying on the statutory presumption, the evidence of threats made by the defendant to prospective witnesses was sufficient to justify his pretrial detention.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for conspiracy and aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine, and that evidence from other counts was properly considered for identification.
-
The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to make the required express finding that the defendant would not benefit from sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.
-
The court held that the marijuana patch and processing area were 'open fields' and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, and that the legality of the search by state troopers should be judged by federal standards. The court also held that there was suf
-
464 So. 2d 582·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1985-01-25
·cited 14×
Clarence Edward Dukes challenged cumulative sentences for sale of cannabis and possession with intent to sell arising from the same factual occurrences. The court receded from its prior holding in Gay v. State, adopting the Blockburger test as mandated by Florida Statute §775.021
-
The court held that Customs officials had reasonable suspicion to detain and search individuals entering the United States for narcotics, and that such searches, including x-rays and administration of laxatives, are permissible under the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspi
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, the voir dire and jury instructions were proper, and the admission of a redacted statement and the handling of alleged juror misconduct did not constitute reversible error.
-
The detention of luggage for a narcotics dog sniff test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as the DEA agents acted with diligence and provided adequate information to the suspect.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of Hill's suitcase was an unreasonable violation of the Fourth Amendment, requiring reversal of his conviction, but affirmed Frazier's conviction as the evidence against him was obtained lawfully and the suitcase evidence was not prejudi
-
The court held that the issue of the vessel's statelessness was preserved for appeal and remanded for further findings on that issue and the government's burden of proof. Regarding the destroyed tapes, the court found no prejudice to the defendants but issued a directive to preve
-
The government's appeal from a judgment of acquittal is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, even if the acquittal was based on erroneous evidentiary rulings.
-
The court held that the defendant's statements to agents were voluntary and that he consented to the search of his automobile, thus denying his motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the initial stop of the limousine was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government's motion to dismiss one count of the indictment. However, the court also held tha
-
The court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search of the truck and that the warrantless search was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and his spontaneous statements were admissible.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit provided a 'clear indication' of internal body smuggling, justifying the magistrate's order for an x-ray search.
-
The court held that the affidavit established probable cause for the search warrant, and the use of a night scope did not violate the defendants' reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the evidence against Rose was insufficient for her convictions.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the airplane was permissible under the automobile exception and as a search incident to arrest, and that probable cause existed to arrest the appellants.
-
The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent request for consent to search were not Fourth Amendment seizures because a reasonable person would have believed they were free to leave.
-
The court held that radio transmissions broadcast on the ham radio frequency, lacking a subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, are not protected by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress
-
-
The dissenting judge argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause requires reversal because the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity and viable alternatives existed.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, specifically the imminent risk of evidence destruction, and that evidence seen in plain view was lawfully seized.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop of the appellants' vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion and that the search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
-
The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding entrapment, the admission of oral statements, and the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy were without merit.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol checkpoint seven miles south of Falfurrias, Texas, was the functional equivalent of the border, making the warrantless search of the defendant's suitcases valid.
-
The court held that the exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding statements made by an unavailable informant was reversible error, as the testimony was relevant to the entrapment defense and not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove knowledge of the cocaine, the warrantless search of the briefcase was justified by exigent circumstances, and any errors in admitting evidence were harmless.
-
The court held that the marijuana was the fruit of an illegal stop and that the abandonment of the evidence was not voluntary, thus affirming the suppression.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including the vehicle's proximity to the border, its suspicious activity, and the occupants' condition, provided customs officers with reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and probable cause to search it.
-
Customs inspectors had reasonable suspicion to conduct a personal search of the appellant, revealing cocaine.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's financial difficulties, but that the special parole condition prohibiting the defendant from returning to the United States was beyond the court's authority.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop of the Cadillac was not based on reasonable suspicion because the government agents lacked specific articulable facts to warrant suspicion of customs law violations.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant's vehicle and probable cause to search it, leading to the affirmance of the conviction.