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
-
A prolonged detention for custodial interrogation, even if voluntary consent to search is obtained during that detention, requires probable cause; otherwise, evidence obtained is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the van was permissible under a forfeiture statute, the admission of a pistol into evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of severance motions was proper. The court also affirmed the admissibility of coconspirator sta
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the appellant's confession, nor was the appellant subjected to double jeopardy or collateral estoppel.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a bill of particulars and that Petersen had automatic standing to challenge searches.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to compel the production of agents' notes under the Jencks Act, as the evidence did not demonstrate the witness adopted or approved the notes as her own statements.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing an entrapment instruction, in giving an undercover agent instruction, and that the mandatory sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) are constitutional and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
-
The court held that while ex parte communications are disfavored, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing them under specific circumstances, but the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the proceedings.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a single conspiracy and that the admission of coconspirator statements and the denial of severance motions were proper.
-
The court held that the Coast Guard had authority to board and search the vessel, that the district court had jurisdiction over the offenses, and that the destruction of recorded communications did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's constructive possession of drugs and intent to distribute, and that the trial court properly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request for disclosure of an informer's identity without conducting an in camera interview to balance the competing interests.
-
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove firearm possession and interstate commerce, and that negotiated drug quantities were properly included in sentencing calculations.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for importing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute was supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy convictions, as it relied on attenuated inferences.
-
The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the initial encounter was consensual, the subsequent investigative detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the detention of his luggage was within constitutional limits.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's reference in closing argument to a co-conspirator's conviction on less evidence than that presented against the defendant deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the admission of incriminating statements obtained in violation of the defendant's Miranda rights, specifically the right to cut off questioning, was not harmless error and required reversal.
-
The court held that the exclusion of the defense investigator's testimony regarding statements made by a third party (Meek) was reversible error, as it deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to present his entrapment defense.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, in its voir dire, or in excluding defense witnesses, and that the speedy trial claim was without merit. However, it found that Counts V and VI should have been consolidated.
-
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Almeida-Sanchez does not alter the precedential effect of circuit case law upholding searches at permanent border patrol checkpoints.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions, the warrantless search of the van was permissible under the automobile exception, and the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence.
-
The court held that testimony regarding prior drug use and distribution was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and knowledge, and under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) to contradict the defendant's material testimony.
-
The court held that a trial court's failure to personally advise jointly represented defendants of their right to separate counsel under Rule 44(c) does not mandate reversal unless an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the lawyer's performance. The court also held tha
-
The court held that appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation because they did not prove the percentage of Hispanics eligible for jury service in the general population.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act's 30-day limit for indictment applies only when an arrest is accompanied by a filed complaint or charges, not a mere arrest followed by release without charges.
-
The court held that the stop of the defendants' car was supported by probable cause, the search of the car and the bag was lawful due to consent and lack of privacy expectation, and the redacted statement did not violate confrontation rights.
-
The court held that the district court's abbreviated voir dire was insufficient to ensure impartiality given extensive pretrial publicity, requiring reversal for some appellants. It also held that consecutive sentences for RICO and predicate offenses are permissible.
-
A search warrant is valid if the remaining true portions of the affidavit, after excising false statements, establish probable cause, especially when the affiant is a non-government informant and the government agents relied in good faith.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of possession and intent to distribute, consecutive sentences for the firearm offenses were permissible under double jeopardy, and the district court did not err in denying the motio
-
The court held that uncharged conduct, if sufficiently reliable and part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction, can be considered for sentencing purposes under the Guidelines, even if it occurred prior to the Guidelines' effective date or was
-
The court affirmed the defendants' sentences, holding that the sentencing guidelines are constitutional and were properly applied in these cases.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act and its promulgated Guidelines do not unconstitutionally deny due process by restricting judicial discretion or vesting excessive authority in the prosecutorial branch.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, the trial judge's conduct, or the refusal to sever tax charges from drug charges.
-
The court held that the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was not adequately supported by findings of fact regarding exigent circumstances, and that the possibility of the government creating the exigent circumstances required further factual determination.
-
The court held that extensive surveillance, including helicopter overflights and use of vision-enhancing devices, did not violate the defendants' reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the informant's consent to wiretaps was voluntary and that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury's finding of conspiracy, thus reversing an acquittal. The court also held that entrapment was not a jury question as the defendant was predisposed.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's improper vouching for the credibility of the police constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal, and that the search warrant was lawful.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for importation of marijuana, but sufficient for possession and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. Warrantless seizure of clothing incident to arrest was permissible.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the production of the prosecutor's interview notes, refusing to compel disclosure of an informant's address, or in its jury instructions, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when private parties, acting on their own initiative and policy, open a suspicious package, and subsequent government searches do not exceed the scope of the private search. The court also held that a comp
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including drug courier profile factors, provided reasonable suspicion to detain the appellant's luggage for a canine sniff, and that the Sentencing Reform Act provisions requiring a government motion for downward adjustment a
-
-
The court held that the dog sniffs were lawful, the warrant for the van pak was valid despite minor misstatements in the affidavit, the protective sweep of the residence was unlawful, but the subsequent search warrant for the residence was valid due to independent probable cause.
-
The court held that the search was a valid border search justified by reasonable suspicion, and that the appellant was not denied her constitutional or statutory right to a speedy trial.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the search of the defendant's luggage was lawful, the admission of certain statements was harmless error, the evidence was sufficient for the money laundering convictions, the pistol was admissible, and the sentencing e
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for drug and firearms offenses and rejecting constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, and even if it ripened into a Terry-seizure, it was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent consent to search was voluntary.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' challenges regarding misjoinder, severance, speedy trial rights, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of the evidence.
-
The court held that dual representation did not violate the Sixth Amendment and that the plea agreement was not breached. The court also held that the investigatory stop was justified by founded suspicion and that severance was not warranted.