COLE

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (47 total)

• Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1970)
  …Ed.2d 676 (1969). In the case sub judice defendant’s palm print was obtained after a lawful [*394] arrest based upon probable cause. This is in accord with the decision in Smith v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 324 F. 2d 879 (1968), cert, den., 377 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 1632, 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1963); where the Court said: “We find no error in the admission of the palm print of Smith taken the day before trial for purposes of comparison with the palm print on the victim’s credit cards. Unlike the situation…
• Fuller v. Wainwright, 238 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1970)
  …lifted from the windowsill of the victim’s house and compared with fingerprints taken from the petitioner after his arrest. This did not violate his constitutional rights. Smith v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 324 F. 2d 879 (1968), cert. den., 377 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 1632, 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1963). Petitioner’s contention that the State suppressed evidence is without merit because he does not allege that, even if some evidence was suppressed, this was done with the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney.…
• State v. Griffith, 500 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
  …her testimony was effectively purged of the taint of the illegal search. The court pointed out the higher cost of disallowing live witness testimony and quoted with approval Smith v. United States, 324 F. 2d 879, 881-82 (D.C.Cir.1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 1632, 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964): The proffer of a living witness is not to be mechanically equated with the proffer of inanimate evidentiary objects illegally seized. The fact that the name of a potential witness is disclosed to police is of…