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 of the vehicle was lawful based on probable cause from the odor of marijuana, and that the defendant's post-arrest statements were voluntary and admissible.
-
The court held that using suppressed wiretap recordings to refresh a witness's recollection before trial does not violate the statutory prohibition on disclosure or use of such recordings.
-
The majority erred in holding that a warrantless search of the suitcase was justified.
-
A warrantless search of a prison employee's belongings is permissible if conducted with the employee's consent, which can be a condition of employment.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest and search of the vehicle were supported by probable cause, and the defendant's inculpatory statements were voluntary and admissible.
-
The court should have ordered an in camera hearing to determine the necessity of witness Doe's information, balancing the defendant's right to prepare a defense against the government's interest in informant secrecy.
-
The court held that the officers lacked sufficient facts to establish reasonable suspicion for the stop of the vehicle.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that admittance was refused under 18 U.S.C. § 3109, making the entry lawful.
-
The court held that under pre-Almeida-Sanchez standards, the border search of the defendant's truck was valid.
-
The court held that the legality of the search depends on whether the checkpoint is the functional equivalent of a border search, a determination to be made by the trial court.
-
The court held that inconsistent verdicts are permissible in a bench trial, especially when the driver's control of the vehicle provides a basis for inferring possession of contraband, while the passenger lacks such direct connection.
-
James Bernard Braddy appealed his conviction for drug possession charges, challenging the legality of a traffic stop, its prolongation, and the subsequent search of his vehicle based on drug detection dog alerts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Braddy
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the subsequent detention of the defendant's bags was justified by reasonable suspicion.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the vehicle and its contents was justified by probable cause, and the traffic stop was not pretextual.
-
The court held that while most of the defendant's claims lacked merit or were waived, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel required a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act applies extraterritorially to the defendant, and the Fourth Amendment does not extend to the search of a non-resident alien's vessel on the high seas.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction on Count 2, the denial of the motion to suppress for Count 4 was proper, and procedural errors were harmless. However, the forfeiture of substitute property was improperly valued.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that similar act evidence was properly admitted, hearsay was correctly excluded, and the jury instruction on flight was adequate.
-
The court held that the search of Garcia's luggage was consensual and that the evidence was sufficient to convict Wolfe, affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that a hotel registration card was admissible for non-hearsay purposes.
-
The Coast Guard's stop of the MIR was constitutional because it occurred at the functional equivalent of a border and was supported by a firm belief that the vessel had come from international waters, or alternatively, was authorized by statute for document inspection.
-
The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendant did not voluntarily consent to accompany the officers, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the admission of hearsay statements for a non-hearsay purpose (to show why a witness remembered a conversation) was not an abuse of discretion, even without a limiting instruction, as it did not constitute plain error.
-
Prosecutor's comments on uncontradicted testimony and rhetorical questions about defendants' presence were not improper and did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
The court held that the Falfurrias checkpoint stops and marijuana odor searches are constitutional and that the evidence was sufficient to convict.
-
J.W., a juvenile, appealed a withholding of adjudication and probation sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and resisting an officer without violence. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress regarding the cocaine evidence, finding J.
-
37 So. 3d 925·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2010-06-09
·cited 12×
David Richards was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell based on evidence that he possessed seven individually wrapped bags of a white powdery substance, only one of which was laboratory tested for cocaine. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the convic
-
The government's misconduct, including the manufacture of evidence by a Customs agent and the subsequent knowing use of that tainted evidence at trial, constitutes a constitutional error that is not subject to the harmless error rule. This misconduct deprived the defendant of due
-
754 So. 2d 141·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2000-03-22
·cited 12×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's question about the secrecy of the surveillance location.
-
Gainer appeals convictions for cocaine possession with intent to distribute, attempted sale/delivery, and being a principal to sale/delivery. The court reverses the possession with intent to distribute conviction because the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant 'used' a firearm in relation to drug possession, but sufficient to prove drug possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that Batson v. Kentucky does not extend to gender-based peremptory challenges, but even if it did, the trial court misapplied the doctrine by requiring more than gender-neutral reasons. The denial or impairment of peremptory challenges is reversible error without a
-
A prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) qualifies as a predicate offense for career offender status. However, a defendant has a constitutional right to collaterally attack prior convictions used for sentence enhancement at the sentencing hearing.
-
The court held that denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not an unconstitutional penalty for asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege, and the defendant's criminal activity was 'otherwise extensive' justifying an upward adjustment.
-
-
The court held that the use of handcuffs during an investigative stop was reasonable, and a defendant's abandonment of a bag negated a Fourth Amendment claim. It also affirmed the denial of severance motions based on a redacted confession and the admission of prior bad acts evide
-
The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the jury instructions were proper. The court also found that the defendant waived his challenge to the duplicitous nature of the indictment.
-
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and using a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense.
-
The court held that the airport encounter and subsequent search of the defendant's suitcase were consensual, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentences, holding that the district court properly refused a jury instruction, that nondisclosed evidence was not material under Brady, and that the Sentencing Guidelines were correctly applied.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Tucker of conspiracy and aiding and abetting, but that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the issue of multiple conspiracies for Wood.
-
The court held that the two-level enhancement for firearm possession under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) was improper because it was clearly improbable that the unloaded handgun found in a locked safe was connected to the drug offense.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire, jury instructions, or sentencing determination, affirming the conviction and sentence.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants waived their challenge to the indictment by not raising it pre-trial, that the jury instructions on conspiracy were proper, and that Bosko's trial counsel provided effective assistance.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop of the defendants' vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent searches of the vehicle trunk and apartment were constitutional based on voluntary consent. Therefore, the convictions are affirmed.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence supported a RICO conspiracy conviction, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions to compel witness testimony or issue a missing witness instruction, nor did the convictions violate double jeopardy.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into Halliman's room was justified by exigent circumstances and that the evidence found was admissible under the independent source doctrine. The court also held that Phauls was lawfully arrested based on probable cause and that his trial
-
The court held that allowing two government agents to remain in the courtroom as witnesses violated Rule 615, but the error was harmless. The court also affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the hearsay or sentencing departure issues.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute convictions, finding insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.