E.A.B. v. State, 2D06-3972.
Decision Date | 26 September 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 2D06-3972.,2D06-3972. |
Citation | 964 So.2d 877 |
Parties | E.A.B., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Allyn M. Giambalvo, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tonja Rene Vickers, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
On appeal from his delinquency adjudication for obstructing an officer without violence, E.A.B. contends that the charge was not proved. We agree and reverse.
The State filed a petition alleging that E.A.B. was delinquent for obstructing an officer without violence, contrary to section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2005). This statute makes it a crime to "resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer . . . in the lawful execution of any legal duty." To prove this charge against E.A.B., the State presented the testimony of Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy Richard Morales. He testified that on the day in question he responded to a particular intersection in Wimauma to investigate a "stolen vehicle that had just occurred." The deputy described this as an area where, based on his experience, a lot of drugs are sold. When he arrived at the intersection, the deputy observed the driver of a truck sounding his horn, flashing his lights, and pointing to a Chevrolet Cavalier.
Deputy Morales testified that, to determine "whether they were involved," he activated his lights and siren to make a traffic stop but the Cavalier left the scene. The deputy followed at a high rate of speed (although he never said that they exceeded the speed limit). The Cavalier entered a trailer park and stopped at a dead end. As Deputy Morales approached, he saw the driver and a passenger exit the car. The deputy verbally ordered them to stop, but both ran off. A short time later the passenger, E.A.B., was apprehended by another deputy.
At the conclusion of the deputy's testimony, defense counsel moved for a dismissal of the charge. He argued that the State had failed to show that the deputy was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty because the deputy lacked a reasonable basis for believing that E.A.B. was involved in criminal activity. The trial court rejected this argument and found E.A.B. delinquent.
We review the denial of a motion to dismiss de novo. E.A.B. v. State, 851 So.2d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)1 (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002)). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, but a dismissal is warranted when the State's evidence was not sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that the elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
The issue we thus confront is whether Deputy Morales was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty when E.A.B. fled. In D.M. v. State, 681 So.2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), a case involving facts very similar to those present in this case, we explained the State's burden when attempting to prove an obstruction based on the defendant's flight:
In order to prove that a defendant is guilty of unlawfully obstructing an officer without violence, the state must establish that the defendant fled with knowledge of the officer's intent to detain him and the officer was justified in making the detention due to his founded suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity.
Id. at 797 (emphasis supplied); see also Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1273 (Fla.2006) ( ); E.A.B., 851 So.2d at 311 ().
Therefore, E.A.B.'s delinquency adjudication can stand only if Deputy Morales had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that E.A.B. was involved in criminal activity. See Tillman, 934 So.2d at 1273; see also Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla.1993) ( ); § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2005) ( ).
Nothing in the scenario described by the deputy gave him an objective basis for suspecting E.A.B. of criminality. The failure of the car to stop when first directed to do so could not be attributed to E.A.B. because he was not driving it. In D.M., 681 So.2d 797, the juvenile defendant was the passenger in a car that fled after running a red light and almost hitting a police car. We reversed an adjudication for obstruction without violence based on the passenger's flight because the officer lacked a founded suspicion to conclude that the passenger was engaged in criminal activity. As we explained in J.R.P. v. State, 942 So.2d 452, 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), another case that reversed an obstruction adjudication under similar facts, the police may have had a basis to stop the drivers, but the passengers had the right to leave in the absence of a well-founded, articulable suspicion that they were involved in criminal activity. See also T.H. v. State, 554 So.2d 589, 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ( ). J.R.P. also described various circumstances that might require a passenger to remain, 942 So.2d at 454-55, but none of those circumstances were present in this case.
Neither could E.A.B.'s own flight from the scene at the trailer park have given the deputy a well-founded, articulable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. There was no evidence that the trailer park was a high crime or drug area. And although the incident began with the deputy's response to a report of a vehicle theft, the State offered no evidence to suggest that the Cavalier was the stolen vehicle, or even that the deputy believed it to be the stolen vehicle.
Obviously, the deputy attributed some sort of significance to the truck driver's actions, and he acted on them. But he offered no basis for relating the truck driver's behavior to the stolen vehicle report or to any other possible criminality. Nor do we know anything about the truck driver's reliability or motive. The deputy did not state where the theft supposedly occurred and did not describe the intersection or surrounding area, the level of activity there, or even the time of day. See State v. Wise, 603 So.2d 61, 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) ( ). At most, the State's evidence established that the deputy had a mere hunch that the Cavalier he encountered at the intersection might be involved in some sort of criminal conduct. The deputy's testimony certainly never established that this defendant, as the passenger, knew or should have known that the car was stolen. Cf. E.A.B., 851 So.2d at 310 ( ).
The trial court relied principally on this court's decision in McGee v. State, 818 So.2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), but that case is distinguishable. In McGee, an officer driving in a high crime area saw the defendant standing in an alley. McGee fled at the sight of the police, and upon his apprehension he discarded cocaine. This court affirmed McGee's convictions for possession of cocaine and obstructing an officer without violence....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Heard
...of an individual confronted by an officer, but the officer may detain the individual to resolve the ambiguity.). But see E.A.B. v. State, 964 So.2d 877, 879 (Fla.Dist.App.2007) (“[P]assengers ha[ve] the right to leave in the absence of a well-founded, articulable suspicion that they were in......
-
Maldonado v. State
...subduing Mr. Maldonado were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties at the time of the alleged resisting. See E.A.B. v. State, 964 So.2d 877, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); I.Y.D. v. State, 711 So.2d 202, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Our holding that Deputy Hall did not have reasonable suspicio......
-
Orta v. City of Orlando
...in which Plaintiff was a passenger failed to stop when directed to do so, this cannot be imputed to Plaintiff. See E.A.B. v. State, 964 So. 2d 877, 878-79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Rather, Doe had to have "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that [Plaintiff] was involved in crimin......
-
M.R. v. State, No. 3D09-1074 (Fla. App. 4/21/2010), 3D09-1074.
...See C.H.C. v. State, 988 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Davis v. State, 973 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); E.A.B. v. State, 964 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). See also Tillman v. State, 934 So. 2d 1263, 1271 (Fla. 2006) and cases cited. The adjudication of delinquency entered on that basi......
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...is affirmed. State v. Pruitt, 977 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) The denial of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. E.A.B. v. State, 964 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) When the state files a demurrer in response to a defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court still must consider the facts a......
-
Appeals
...the law. Williams v. State, 34 So. 3d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) The denial of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. E.A.B. v. State, 964 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) Third District Court of Appeal To prevail in its petition for a writ of certiorari, the state must first demonstrate that th......