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 boarding was lawful under the Coast Guard's authority, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for drug possession, importation, and conspiracy.
-
The court held that the evidence was admissible, the trial was timely under the Speedy Trial Act, and the jury instructions were proper, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the initial police encounter with the defendant constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence obtained was tainted by this unlawful seizure.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions and that the submission of written jury instructions was not prejudicial error. The court vacated Perez's special parole term as it cannot be imposed for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence seized without a warrant from a van and a briefcase, and that the indictment and trial were timely under the Speedy Trial Act.
-
The court held that a separate conviction for possession with intent to distribute is impermissible when the possession is an essential element of the distribution offense charged and proven.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's home was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception and that the defendant failed to prove a violation of the knock and announce statute.
-
The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding the legality of her arrest, the officers' entry into her motel room, the sufficiency of the search warrant, and the seizure of the ledger were without merit.
-
A warrantless search of a vessel newly arrived from a foreign port is permissible under the Fourth Amendment, even without direct observation of its entry into United States waters, if circumstances provide reasonable grounds to believe it has made such an entry.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the van was constitutional based on probable cause derived from the odor of marijuana and suspicious circumstances, and that the defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible despite a delay in arraignment.
-
The court affirmed the conviction because probable cause existed to search the vehicle, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court improperly departed from the sentencing guidelines.
-
The court affirmed the convictions for drug and firearm offenses, but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing due to the district court's unconstitutional ruling on the Sentencing Reform Act.
-
The court held that the seizure of the suspect's ticket constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent detention and search were justified by probable cause arising from a suspicious bulge.
-
The court held that the search of the aircraft was a lawful border search, and the defendants' other claims of error were without merit.
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a truck 150 miles inland and 142 hours after crossing the border was constitutionally permissible under the border search exception due to reasonable suspicion, and that co-conspirator hearsay testimony was admissible.
-
The exclusionary rule should apply to sentencing, as allowing illegally seized evidence would significantly undermine the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a single conspiracy, knowing participation, and applying the Pinkerton doctrine. It also upheld the use of the 'ostrich' jury instruction and rejected double jeopardy claims.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant waived his motion for acquittal by failing to renew it, that the sentencing was proper, that the judge's questioning did not constitute plain error, and that the voir dire was adequate.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the joinder of counts and defendants was proper, and the denial of severance motions was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. The admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if potentially erroneous, was harmless error.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, the government's conduct was not outrageous, and inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal of a conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Bedoya's conspiracy conviction, reversing both appellants' conspiracy convictions. The court affirmed Valencia's conviction on the substantive count.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on prosecutorial vindictiveness, continuances, marijuana classification, jury voir dire, severance, admission of extrinsic evidence, or sufficiency of evidence.
-
The court held that the majority erred in upholding Mansfield's conviction, as the evidence did not establish probable cause for his arrest.
-
The court held that convictions must be reversed if jurors were prejudiced by knowledge of a defendant's prior trial, and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on the right to remain silent. An investigatory stop is permissible even if it briefly restricts a suspect's fr
-
The court held that a co-defendant's attorney's comments about another co-defendant's silence, if not intended to comment on that silence, do not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court also held that mere presence or knowledge of illegal activity is insufficient to prove particip
-
Pomerantz was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after police searched his checked luggage at Miami International Airport and found drugs. The court reversed, holding that police actively participated in an unreasonable warrantless search that violated
-
The court held that the admission of flight evidence, hearsay testimony, and the restriction of cross-examination were not reversible errors, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on specific articulable facts indicating potential alien smuggling, even though the defendant was ultimately convicted of marijuana smuggling.
-
The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, finding sufficient evidence and proper procedures.
-
The court held that giving a "Jewell" instruction on deliberate avoidance was error because the evidence pointed to actual knowledge, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the prosecutor's misstatement about a co-defendant's indictment was improper but harmless du
-
The court affirmed all of appellant's convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the sufficiency of the indictment.
-
The court held that the arrests, searches, and convictions were lawful, rejecting numerous challenges to the proceedings.
-
A prior jury verdict of guilty, where judgment and sentence have not yet been entered, is admissible for impeachment purposes if the defendant has the opportunity to explain its legal status.
-
The court held that the cocaine was lawfully seized despite potential non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3109 because an undercover officer was lawfully present and had constructive possession of the contraband. The court also held that the trial judge properly refused to instruct t
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that DeLeon's other contentions lacked merit.
-
The court held that admitting evidence of prior similar acts to prove intent and knowledge was reversible error when the defense had unequivocally conceded those elements.
-
The court held that the government's failure to disclose the appellant's inculpatory oral statement prior to trial was harmless error and did not warrant a mistrial.
-
The court held that the search of the appellant's vehicle was valid under the border search doctrine applicable at the time, and that the prosecutor's remarks regarding the appellant's silence and inconsistent statements were permissible.
-
The court held that the rent receipts were improperly admitted as hearsay and that the government failed to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on continuances, evidence admission, jury instructions, or new trial motions.
-
The court argues that a single, deferential standard of review, specifically the 'clearly erroneous' rule, should be applied to all determinations of probable cause, regardless of who made the initial determination (magistrate, judge, or jury).
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, that the district court did not err in denying severance or motions to suppress, that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless, and that sentencing was proper.
-
The court held that knowledge of the quantity of marijuana is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and that a warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible if supported by probable cause.
-
The court held that the roadblock stop, subsequent detention, and vehicle search were lawful, and the trial court did not err in refusing to admit the co-defendant's attorney's testimony.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest Mahdi and reasonable suspicion to detain Willis, and that the subsequent arrests and evidence seizures were constitutional.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the suitcase by disclaiming ownership, and the initial encounter in Atlanta was not a seizure, while the subsequent encounter in Detroit was a permissible investigatory stop based on reasonable s
-
The court held that the attachment of a tracking device inside an aircraft was justified by a warrant based on probable cause, and the subsequent search of the aircraft at the Panama City Airport was a valid border search, not requiring a warrant or probable cause. The evidence w
-
The court held that the admission of DEA agent testimony regarding general investigative procedures was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, warranting reversal of the convictions.
-
The court held that the appellants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the search and seizure, and the district court did not err in denying the motion for use immunity.