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 there was insufficient evidence to support convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
463 So. 2d 343·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1985-01-10
·cited 4×
S.N., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for both possession of cannabis and sale/delivery of cannabis. The appellate court reversed the adjudication on the sale/delivery charge because the evidence only supported a finding of possession with intent to sell, a different crime
-
The court held that delay caused by codefendants is excludable from the speedy trial calculation for a defendant joined in a multi-defendant trial, even if the defendant himself did not cause the delay.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana was valid, affirming the trial court's rulings.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants and that their arrests and subsequent seizures were lawful, as probable cause existed.
-
The court held that the warrantless search and seizure of marijuana plants in an open field did not violate the Fourth Amendment, following the Supreme Court's 'open fields' doctrine.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the government's position, finding the detention reasonably related to the initial search and thus not an unreasonable intrusion.
-
The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant under the totality of the circumstances test, and that the district court did not err regarding the burden of proof for the warrantless search.
-
The court held that the defendants were denied their rights under the Jencks Act due to the district court's abuse of discretion in denying a reasonable recess for reviewing voluminous Jencks Act materials, necessitating a new trial.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, and that the denial of the severance motion and suppression motion were proper.
-
The court held that the cocaine found in the hotel room was admissible under the plain view exception and that the taped conversations were admissible as evidence of a single conspiracy.
-
The court held that the plea agreements were not breached by the imposition of fines and that the search warrant was valid.
-
Consecutive sentences were permissible for simultaneous possession of cocaine and a firearm, and for possession of two different firearms on separate occasions. The evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession.
-
The court held that keys seized during a warrantless arrest were admissible because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and even if suppressed, there was ample other evidence to convict.
-
The court held that the police's inventory search of the locked camper portion of the vehicle was valid under the Fourth Amendment. The discovery of a large sum of money in the cab justified extending the inventory search to the camper for the owner's property protection.
-
The court held that the Coast Guard's boarding and subsequent discovery of marijuana was lawful under 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) and the Fourth Amendment.
-
Customs officers had authority to investigate and seize marijuana, and a single search warrant was sufficient for the vehicle and its contents.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for importation and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for judgments of acquittal.
-
The dissenting judge would have found the warrantless core sampling constitutionally permissible and reversed the suppression order.
-
The court held that the warrantless searches of the automobile trunks were permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and that the introduction of a piece of paper and limitations on marijuana species evidence were not erroneous.
-
The court held that the dismissal of one count of an indictment by the government before trial does not constitute an amendment, and a conviction for possessing a Schedule II controlled substance is valid even if the substance is not medically classified as a narcotic.
-
The court held that the capacity in which the boarding party acted (Coast Guard or Customs agents) is determinative of the boarding's validity and requires further factual findings by the district court.
-
Billy Retherford was convicted of three drug offenses, including separate counts for possession of marijuana and hashish with intent to distribute. The appellate court held that marijuana and hashish are both forms of cannabis under Florida law and therefore constitute the same o
-
The court held that the prosecutor's comment was not a manifest violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, any error regarding the destroyed booking sheet was harmless, and the admission of a codefendant's testimony was proper.
-
The court held that the warrantless search and seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine and that the admission of coconspirator hearsay was proper under the Oliva standard.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Border Patrol's actions did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that the Sarita checkpoint was the functional equivalent of the border at the time of the seizure, making the search legally permissible.
-
583 F.2d 1188·
2d Cir.·
1978-09-15
·cited 4×
The court held that while the statute creating a presumption of knowing possession of narcotics from presence in a vehicle is constitutional, the trial judge's instructions improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendants, violating due process.
-
The court held that the conviction must be affirmed because the officers conducting the search lacked notice that checkpoint searches were constitutionally impermissible at the time of the search.
-
The court held that a trial court is not obligated to give a jury instruction regarding co-defendants' Fifth Amendment invocation if there is no record that the privilege was actually claimed in the presence of the jury.
-
The court affirmed the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and the denial of the motion to suppress evidence.
-
The court held that the totality of circumstances, including the vehicle's low-riding trunk, the occupants' nervousness, an implausible explanation for a missing key, denial of car ownership, and evasive driving, created probable cause to search the vehicle at a permanent Border
-
The court held that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the search of the house, and therefore, the information gained from that search could not be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The denial of counsel's motion to withdraw was also affirmed.
-
The court held that the search of the vehicle was valid as it occurred at the functional equivalent of the border, and the contraband did not need to be introduced at trial due to stipulations.
-
The court held that the trial judge's erroneous and prejudicial limitation of the term 'rip-off' to narcotics transactions deprived the defendants of a fair trial.
-
The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the government from appealing a judgment of acquittal entered by a judge based on insufficient evidence presented at trial.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction of the defendants for conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court's jury instructions did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's improper question about the defendant's prior criminal record, though unanswered and sustained by the court, did not prejudice the defendant or deprive him of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcase at the port of entry was legal, and the subsequent arrest in the hotel room was justified by exigent circumstances. The court also found no reversible error in the trial court's handling of a potentially biased juror.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for a jury to rationally conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing expert testimony, denying a mistrial, or in its handling of the interpreter.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's application of a firearms enhancement, finding sufficient nexus between the rifle and the drug offenses.
-
272 So. 3d 243·
Fla.·
2019-05-30
·cited 3×
The Florida Supreme Court authorized proposed amendments to standard jury instructions in criminal drug cases, consolidating multiple trafficking instructions into one flexible instruction and revising affirmative defense language regarding knowledge of the illicit nature of cont
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search due to exigent circumstances, that the evidence was sufficient to support Bastar's convictions, and that the denial of the motion for a new trial was p
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions to disclose the confidential informant, denying severance, denying a mistrial, refusing a vicarious entrapment instruction, and admitting evidence of cocaine found in a defendant's wallet.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the forfeiture of cash was permissible.
-
The court held that the detention of mail packages for a dog-sniff test, without delaying their delivery, does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that even if the first statement was coerced, the second, independently admissible statement was voluntary and sufficient to uphold the conviction, and any error in admitting the first statement was harmless.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence demonstrated the appellants' willful participation in the drug conspiracy, supporting their convictions.