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 facts known to Agent Hicks did not establish reasonable, articulable suspicion for the Terry stop.
-
The government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant posed a risk of flight and by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a danger to the community, thus pretrial detention was warranted.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his luggage, and no seizure occurred prior to consent.
-
The court held that venue was improper for the possession conviction but affirmed the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that a district court may consider drug quantities beyond those specified in the count of conviction when determining a defendant's base offense level, provided those quantities are part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan, and the factual findin
-
Improper prosecutorial remarks during summation, which undermined the presumption of innocence and the role of defense counsel, warrant reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the investigative stop and subsequent frisk of the defendant were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and not so intrusive as to constitute an arrest requiring probable cause.
-
The court held that the initial investigatory stop, the manner of the stop, the frisk, and the search of the vehicle were all lawful, and therefore the district court erred in suppressing the evidence.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, nor did it err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the defendant was properly classified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and that his sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
-
The court held that the defendants' retained counsel did not have disqualifying conflicts of interest and that the trial court did not err in denying motions to disqualify counsel or in its evidentiary rulings and sentencing.
-
The court held that law enforcement officials had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain the defendant's bag for inspection by a narcotics detection dog, and that sufficient evidence existed to prove knowing possession of the cocaine found within.
-
The court held that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize the package based on the defendant's conduct.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act requires dismissal of only the offenses charged in the original complaint if the indictment is untimely, and that the defendant's role in the offense was not minimal enough for a sentencing reduction.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, the Fourth Amendment was not violated by the search of the storage bin, and the girlfriend's testimony was admissible.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence seized without a warrant, denying motions for mistrial, or in its sentencing decisions.
-
The court held that the district court's conduct, including disparaging remarks about nationality and improper evidentiary rulings, created an appearance of bias, warranting a new trial for some defendants and dismissal of charges for another due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the border patrol agent lacked founded suspicion to justify the investigatory detention of the juvenile's automobile, as the observed factors were insufficient when considered collectively.
-
The court held that while proceeding with jury selection in the defendant's absence was initially permissible, the district court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the defendant's explanation for his absence upon his return, requiring a remand for further fact
-
The court held that the sentencing judge's remarks, while approaching the zone of unconstitutionality, were permissible within the context of general deterrence and balanced with individual characteristics, and that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the attorney's c
-
The court held that non-black defendants lack standing to raise a Batson challenge regarding the exclusion of black jurors, and that the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement does not apply to petit juries. The court also affirmed the admission of two tape-recorded con
-
The court held that the government's use of peremptory strikes was not discriminatory, joinder was proper, photographic identifications were not unduly suggestive, informant identities were not required to be disclosed, and other trial rulings were not abuses of discretion.
-
The majority erred by allowing the exigent circumstances exception to swallow the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, despite a lack of evidence of imminent destruction.
-
The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent searches were permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the conviction stands.
-
The court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal, finding no arguable issues.
-
The court held that the investigatory detention did not ripen into a de facto arrest without probable cause, the search warrant was based on probable cause, and the two counts for possession of marijuana and hashish were distinct offenses.
-
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Bourjaily v. United States, which allows co-conspirator statements to be considered in determining co-conspirator status, effectively overrules the prior James test, making the admission of the statements proper.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment with prejudice due to Speedy Trial Act violations.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, refusing an addict-informer instruction, admitting certain evidence, denying severance, or finding the evidence sufficient to convict.
-
The court held that the warrantless second entry into the defendant's hotel room was lawful under the 'consent once removed' doctrine, and the seizure of evidence was permissible under the plain view doctrine.
-
The court held that the evidence obtained from the San Francisco search warrant was admissible because the warrant was based on independent probable cause, not tainted by the prior illegal search in Atlanta. The court also held that it was not bound by the government's prior conc
-
The court held that a defendant cannot be punished for both conspiracy and the underlying substantive offenses if they are not distinct under the Blockburger test, and that separate sentences for aiding and abetting possession and distribution are impermissible when arising from
-
The court held that the border search of the boat, including drilling into its hull, was constitutional, and the defendants' statements were voluntary and admissible. Any error regarding comments on post-Miranda silence was harmless.
-
A district court's acceptance of a guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis, potentially due to a misunderstanding of the defendant's admissions, requires remand for the court to make that determination.
-
The court held that the district court's findings regarding probable cause for the initial seizure and the waiver of Miranda rights were ambiguous and required clarification, thus remanding those issues. Other claims were rejected.
-
A district court has discretion to seal an indictment for legitimate prosecutorial needs beyond merely securing the defendant's arrest, and dismissal is only warranted upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the defendant.
-
The court held that the district court's failure to adequately advise a defendant of his right to separate counsel under Rule 44(c), combined with an actual conflict of interest arising from joint representation, mandates reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing an entrapment instruction for Count III, requiring reversal of that conviction, but found no reversible error in other grounds raised by the defendant.
-
The court held that a defendant must establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area prior to trial to have standing to suppress evidence, and failure to do so waives the right to challenge admissibility at trial.
-
The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by the pre-indictment delay and that the evidence seized from the vehicle was admissible under the Fourth Amendment's inventory search exception.
-
The court held that the search warrant was not defective, the seized items were in plain view, administrative subpoenas were validly issued to third parties, and the sentence for continuing criminal enterprise was not cruel and unusual punishment. However, conspiracy convictions
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and seizure of cocaine from the defendant's motel room, and thus the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the monitoring of a beeper signal disclosing an aircraft's presence in public airspace does not constitute an unconstitutional search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, even if the beeper remained installed beyond the warrant's removal date.
-
The dissent argues that the agents' actions constituted a seizure requiring probable cause, not a brief investigatory stop, and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of possession, even with inconsistencies in witness testimony.
-
The dissenting judge held that the offenses were not separate and distinct, as the defendant was solicited by the government.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, as the defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his clothing, and the admission of the DEA statistical graph was proper under the hearsay exception for public records.
-
A warrantless chemical analysis of a package's contents by federal agents, exceeding the scope of a prior private search, violates the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's comment, while ill-advised, was not reversible error given the ambiguous nature and the curative instruction provided. The court also affirmed the denial of the severance motion and the admission of prior arrest evidence.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give a missing witness instruction or allow related arguments, nor in restricting defense counsel's closing argument.