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 admission of drug courier profile testimony was harmless error given overwhelming evidence of guilt, and sentencing challenges were without merit.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and that the voice recording was properly authenticated and admitted.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to stop and search the defendants' vehicle, making the seized cocaine admissible evidence.
-
The court held that the warrantless stop and search of the vehicle was lawful due to probable cause, and that the delay in presenting the defendants to a magistrate did not warrant suppression of their confessions.
-
The court held that a trial court must answer a deliberating jury's specific legal questions, and failing to do so when the jury asks whether an agreement with a government agent can constitute conspiracy is prejudicial error for a defendant whose conviction rests solely on such
-
The court held that the warrantless roadside search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception due to probable cause, the station house search warrant was sufficiently particular, and the inventory searches of the purse were lawful.
-
The court held that a petitioner seeking relief from a stand committed fine due to indigence should pursue administrative remedies rather than a § 2255 petition, and that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute despite a contro
-
The court held that even if the officer's intrusion into the vehicle constituted a search, it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the detected odor of marijuana and the government's interest in border security.
-
The court held that a search of a vehicle during an investigatory stop is permissible if the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain control of weapons, and that possession with intent to distribute constitutes a 'drug trafficking crime' under 1
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding evidence of police misconduct, accepting a partial jury verdict, or refusing to apply the rule of consistency.
-
The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, and therefore, the indictment stands.
-
The court held that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act is constitutional and that the admission of coconspirator statements and a defendant's false exculpatory statement were proper or harmless error. The evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Batson hearing for Italian-Americans, denying a motion for recusal, enhancing sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 without specific notice, or in its grand jury selection process.
-
The court held that evidence of co-conspirator actions after one conspirator's arrest is admissible, and that dismissing a juror for just cause and proceeding with eleven jurors is permissible under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b).
-
The court held that consecutive sentences for five separate convictions of possession with intent to distribute cocaine did not violate double jeopardy.
-
The court held that MDMA convictions must be reversed because the DEA exceeded its authority in making MDMA illegal, but Bernauer's cocaine conviction is affirmed based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
-
The court held that the cultivation of marijuana, even for personal use, constitutes 'manufacture' under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and that the indictment and jury instructions were proper.
-
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that searches were justified by probable cause or consent, evidence supported conspiracy charges, and defenses like entrapment and overreaching were not applicable.
-
Evidence of prior and subsequent negotiations and illicit transactions, in addition to the specific sale charged, can be used to establish a seller's guilt as an aider and abettor for the recipient's possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting voir dire and that the verdict forms did not improperly amend the indictment.
-
The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage was lawful, either through voluntary consent or implied consent, and that any potential illegality of the initial stop was purged by this consent. The court also found no violation of the Speedy Trial Act.
-
The court held that a private citizen's search, even if motivated by a desire to assist law enforcement, does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the government did not know of, acquiesce in, or initiate the intrusive conduct. Graciela Flores' conviction for two conspiracy counts
-
The court held that the investigating officer's affair with a codefendant, while improper, did not violate the defendant's due process rights, interfere with his right to counsel, or vitiate the wiretap application, absent demonstrable prejudice.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, but remanded for correction of the judgment.
-
The court held that the defendant's objections under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 were not preserved for appeal due to lack of specificity, and venue was proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
-
494 So. 2d 255·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1986-09-03
·cited 10×
The State appeals a trial court's dismissal of a cannabis possession with intent to sell charge for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the defendant's possession of an unspecified amount constituted a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The court reverses, holding that possession with i
-
The court held that the appearance of justice was not satisfied due to the district judge's communications with the United States Attorney and a Senator regarding the defendant's case, requiring reassignment for resentencing.
-
The court held that the search of the vehicle and its contents was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because probable cause existed to believe contraband was in the vehicle, and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search.
-
The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by police surveillance and the defendant's suspicious statements, provided probable cause for his arrest and the subsequent search warrant. Statements made by the defendant were admissible as they were either voluntary or prec
-
Possession of cocaine in the United States, even with intent to distribute it in a foreign country, is sufficient to establish guilt under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence obtained through wiretaps and oral communications, nor in admitting certain hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception, and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant a mistrial.
-
The government waived its right to challenge the defendant's standing to contest the search of a motel room due to inconsistent arguments made throughout the litigation.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of four defendants and dismissed the appeal of another, finding no merit in the challenges to the sufficiency of evidence or the limitations on cross-examination.
-
Defendants lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in a package addressed to a third party, even if they were the intended recipients of its contents.
-
The court held that warrantless installation and monitoring of a beeper inside private residences or storage lockers violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from a tainted search warrant must be suppressed.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for severance or in ruling that the defendant lacked standing to challenge evidence seized from a co-defendant's residence.
-
The court held that the district judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession, as a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty of simple possession but not possession with intent to distribute.
-
Counsel's stipulation to a thirteen-person jury was a valid tactical waiver of the right to a twelve-person jury, and the Customs search was within the agency's authority.
-
The court held that the "knock and notice" requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3109 applied to the iron gate, and the officers' forced entry without compliance required suppression of the seized evidence.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's requests for a chemist, both before and during trial, because the requests were untimely and failed to demonstrate necessity for an adequate defense.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop, baggage detention for a sniff-search, and seizure of items incident to arrest were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and thus, the evidence was admissible.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in sustaining objections to irrelevant cross-examination, that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and that there was no plain error in failing to instruct on simple possession.
-
Customs agents had sufficient suspicious facts to justify an investigatory stop of the vessel.
-
395 So. 2d 555·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1981-02-04
·cited 10×
In consolidated appeals of six defendants convicted of felony marijuana possession, the court affirmed all convictions but vacated the sentences imposed on two defendants for simple possession where they were also sentenced for the lesser-included offense of possession with inten
-
The court held that the Coast Guard's boarding of the American vessel and seizure of marijuana were lawful.
-
The court held that the DEA agents had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on information from bowling alley employees and their own observations, and that the defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag he voluntarily discarded.
-
The court held that the warrantless search and seizure of marijuana from a stranded sailboat was permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment, as it was based on probable cause and the vessel's precarious condition.
-
The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for undercover agents to gather evidence in plain view, even if obtained through deception.
-
The court held that the warrantless seizure of marijuana from a warehouse was lawful under the plain view doctrine, as officers had probable cause to enter for arrests and the contraband was visible.