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 installation and use of a beeper on aircraft, authorized by state court orders based on sufficient affidavits, did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence was sufficient to convict the sister.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty on charges of conspiracy to import and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, aiding and abetting importation, and possession with intent to distribute.
-
362 So. 2d 444·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1978-09-07
·cited 10×
Ray Alton Norman was convicted of possession of more than five grams of cannabis and possession with intent to sell. The appellate court affirmed the conviction on Count I but reversed on Count II, finding insufficient evidence of intent to sell. The court rejected Norman's argum
-
The court held that the initial stop of the defendant's vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent search was justified by probable cause.
-
The court held that a 27-month delay between arrest and trial did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
-
The court held that the trial court correctly admitted the prior consistent statement of a government witness because it fell within the exception to the hearsay rule for statements offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication.
-
The court held that the border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle and probable cause to search it.
-
The court held that probable cause existed to stop and search Waddy's vehicle based on a corroborated informant's tip, but the evidence was insufficient to sustain Gonzalez's conviction for conspiracy.
-
The court held that an entry obtained by ruse or deception, without the application of force, does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial.
-
The court held that the border patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop the car, and the subsequent search was proper because marijuana was in plain view.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a continuance, refusing to suppress evidence, or admitting testimony, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
-
The court held that the seizure of marijuana was constitutional and that the sentencing procedure violated federal rules and Supreme Court precedent by denying adequate time for preparation and investigation.
-
The court held that the jury instructions on entrapment were erroneous because they failed to inform the jury that a paid government informer, acting as a surrogate, could also perpetrate entrapment.
-
The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the defense counsel was misled by a court law clerk regarding jury instructions on lesser included offenses.
-
The court held that the recovery of contraband openly discarded by defendants did not constitute an illegal search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for severance or mistrial, nor in its evidentiary rulings, as the co-defendant's testimony, while potentially prejudicial, was relevant and the defendant's own defense of entrapment opened the door
-
The court held that the denial of a bill of particulars was not an abuse of discretion and that inconsistent verdicts between substantive and conspiracy charges are permissible.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellants' motion for a judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that border agents had probable cause to arrest and search the trailer, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
600 So. 2d 513·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1992-06-10
·cited 9×
Florida appellate court reversed conviction for simple possession of cannabis as a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to sell, violating double jeopardy principles, while affirming other convictions.
-
The court held that the wife's consent to search the farmhouse was voluntary and that she possessed common authority over the premises, thus the search was lawful. The court also held that the district court did not err in refusing to reopen the suppression hearing.
-
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences, holding that while the warrantless entry into the Karenway apartment violated the Fourth Amendment, the subsequent search warrant was based on independent information, rendering the evidence admissible. Other challenges regarding
-
The majority holds that the district court erred in suppressing evidence, applying the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The dissent argues that erroneous information generated by an officer's negligence cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion or justify the
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that a discovery violation was not prejudicial, comments on post-arrest silence were harmless error, and a deliberate ignorance instruction, though erroneous, was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of actual knowledge.
-
-
The court held that the officers' actions did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because a reasonable person would have felt free to decline to answer questions or leave the bus.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned the suitcases, thus lacking standing to challenge their search, and affirmed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. However, the court vacated his conviction for violating the Travel Act based on a government
-
The court held that evidence obtained from an illegal search is admissible under the inevitable discovery exception if a private party's lawful conduct would have inevitably led to its discovery.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied Kett's motion to vacate his sentence, as his claims regarding outrageous government conduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and preclusion of an entrapment defense lacked merit.
-
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, and that the trial judge did not err in jury instructions or in denying a mistrial.
-
The Sixth Amendment speedy trial right is not triggered by a prior state arrest or indictment; probable cause for arrest existed based on informant's tip confirmed by discovery of cocaine on a companion.
-
The court held that the defendants' trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, as their actions were either reasonable tactical decisions or did not result in prejudice to the defendants' cases.
-
The court held that Mr. Atkinson's sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing because his career offender status was misapplied, but affirmed Mr. Montgomery's sentence as the district court did not err in its drug quantity determination or § 5K1.1 departure.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of gang membership and prior drug dealings, denying motions for mistrial, and utilizing mass jury selection, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to substitute counsel and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendant was a member of the conspiracy and possessed cocaine. However, the court reversed in part, fin
-
The court held that the defendant's contentions regarding chain of custody, outrageous government conduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing calculation lacked merit.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's home was lawful despite the officers' failure to strictly adhere to the knock-and-announce rule, and that the admission of certain witness statements and evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a sealed drum, even if labeled as a common chemical, violates the Fourth Amendment if the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the container and no exigent circumstances justified the search.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial, applying the Sentencing Guidelines, denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, or including a 1970 conviction in the criminal history category.
-
The court held that the defendant's contentions lacked merit, except for the issue concerning the fine under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which the government conceded. The conviction is affirmed.
-
The court held that while the district court erred in admitting drug courier profile testimony and evidence of a marijuana cigarette, these errors were harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of drug and firearm offenses, and that the mandatory statutory sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. However, the court also noted that only one consecutive sentence under § 924(c)(1) could be imp
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment, nor in refusing to provide a jury instruction defining 'reasonable doubt'.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts on the drug possession and firearm charges.
-
The court held that the encounters between the detectives and the defendants did not constitute Fourth Amendment seizures and that the searches were consensual or based on reasonable suspicion.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in including the full amount of cocaine found in the defendant's possession for sentencing purposes, as it was permissible to infer the defendant's knowledge of all the drugs.
-
The court affirmed the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice and leadership role, finding no clear error in the district court's factual findings and application of the guidelines.
-
The court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights are not violated when a witness refuses to answer collateral questions on Fifth Amendment grounds, especially when the refusal itself can be used to impeach the witness's credibility.