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 a limited patdown at the border, even if not strictly routine, was justified by reasonable suspicion, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no constitutional violations and no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion improperly deviates from binding precedent, United States v. Sarmiento, which held that customs officers lack authority to board vessels on the high seas.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcases was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the imminent departure of the suspects created exigent circumstances, and the officers reasonably chose between searching the luggage or detaining the suspects.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of a locked briefcase found in an impounded vehicle was constitutional as a valid inventory search.
-
The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction and that a defendant could be convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise even if his management activities involved bookkeeping, affirming all convictions.
-
The court held that the compression and sniff of the defendant's bag did not constitute an illegal seizure or search, and the defendant abandoned the suitcase, thus waiving his right to challenge the search.
-
The court held that the compression and sniff of the suitcases did not constitute a search or seizure, and the suspect abandoned the suitcases, negating standing. However, the court remanded for further findings on the suppression of two marijuana cigarettes and statements made b
-
The court held that a judge is not bound by a prosecutor's sentencing recommendation, even if included in a plea agreement, as long as the defendant is aware of this. The court also held that convictions under separate statutes for a single act are permissible if each statute req
-
The court held that the Coast Guard had probable cause to board the vessel based on the totality of the circumstances observed.
-
The court held that the district court erred in finding the appellant's statement was a spontaneous utterance, and remanded for factual findings on whether the appellant was in custody for Miranda purposes.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or prejudicial, thus not meeting the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of both Anthony and Cheryl Pipito, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings or the sufficiency of the evidence.
-
The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar a second trial because the prosecution did not intentionally provoke the mistrial, and the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements or in its communication with the jury.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence obtained from wiretaps, vehicle searches, and residence searches, affirming the convictions.
-
Violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)(2) in obtaining a search warrant via telephone were not egregious enough to warrant suppression of the evidence, as they did not prejudice the defendant or demonstrate intentional disregard for the rule.
-
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly raised on direct appeal, and other claims regarding hearsay, sufficiency of evidence, and new trial motions lacked merit.
-
The court held that a district court has discretion to reject a guilty plea if it believes the defendant is not being truthful during the allocution, and that requiring peremptory challenges to be exercised publicly does not deny a fair trial.
-
The court held that the district court's procedure, including a public adversarial hearing and a subsequent in camera inquiry, adequately addressed the defendant's challenge to the veracity of the search warrant affidavit under Franks v. Delaware, especially given the need to pro
-
The court held that the admission of prior conspiracy convictions into evidence to prove intent and identity in a trial for substantive crimes was an abuse of discretion under Fed.R.Evid. 403.
-
The district court affirmed the magistrate's pretrial detention orders for both defendants, finding that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure their appearance and the safety of the community.
-
The court held that at least sixteen days in May were excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, meaning the defendants received a timely trial.
-
The court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search of the suitcase because the government failed to present admissible evidence of abandonment.
-
The court held that the government's failure to disclose certain witness statements did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the request for the information was general, and the undisclosed evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial.
-
The court held that the defendants were not unlawfully seized, the search of the travel bag was proper, and there was probable cause for Cipriano's arrest.
-
464 So. 2d 624·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1985-02-27
·cited 2×
Johnnie Lee Williams appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to sell cocaine. The court held that simple possession and possession with intent to sell are not separate offenses because all elements of simple possession are conta
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting or excluding evidence, nor was the evidence insufficient to convict the defendants.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of drug offenses and that their detentions and the admission of evidence were lawful.
-
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding telephone conversations, which constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause, was prejudicial error requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
-
447 So. 2d 1007·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1984-03-28
·cited 2×
Kenneth Lamar Gay appealed sentences for drug offenses, challenging whether he was subjected to double jeopardy by being sentenced separately for both sale of cannabis and possession with intent to sell based on the same conduct. The court held that these charges constituted the
-
The court held that an informant's tip, even with minor inaccuracies, when corroborated by independent investigation, can provide sufficient probable cause for a search warrant under the totality of the circumstances test.
-
The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant is admissible if the lawfully obtained information in the affidavit amounts to probable cause and would have justified issuance of the warrant apart from any tainted information.
-
The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper and that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motions for a new trial, as the evidence supported the finding that consent to search was voluntary.
-
The evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, as the defendant's control of the vessel and knowledge of the contraband could be reasonably inferred.
-
The court held that Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellants' vehicle based on the totality of the circumstances, including sensor data, knowledge of the area, and vehicle characteristics.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the appellant's locked suitcase was unconstitutional because the luggage was under the control of authorities and there was no probable cause or exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to reopen its case, nor was the evidence insufficient to prove government property destruction, and a mistaken belief about the right to counsel does not excuse violent conduct.
-
The court held that a formal written waiver of Miranda rights is not required, and a voluntary waiver can be inferred from the circumstances.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol had probable cause to search the vehicle, and thus the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the government's withholding of certain information did not violate Brady v. Maryland or the Jencks Act, and thus did not deny the defendant a fair trial.
-
The court held that the evidence of possession was sufficient and that the defendant's admission was voluntary and admissible, despite not signing a waiver form.
-
The court held that prosecuting a defendant for separate offenses arising from the same episode, when those offenses are distinct and charges are dismissed with prejudice, does not violate double jeopardy, due process, or speedy trial rights.
-
The court held that the stop and search of the defendant's truck were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, affirming his conviction.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for severance and relief from prejudicial error.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellants' convictions for importing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to search his truck was voluntary, and therefore the evidence found was admissible.
-
The court held that the conviction for distributing cocaine was valid despite acquittal on possession with intent to distribute, and that the defenses of buyer's agent and entrapment lacked merit.