B. A. A. v. State

Decision Date09 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 49992,49992
Citation356 So.2d 304
PartiesB. A. A., a juvenile, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Paul Morris, Asst. Public Defender, Miami, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William M. Grodnick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for respondent.

BOYD, Justice.

This cause presents an issue of the application of Florida's loitering and prowling statute, Section 856.021, Florida Statutes. We have conflict certiorari jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Conflict in this cause is with State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975).

The juvenile in the instant case was arrested for loitering and prowling after a police officer observed her, a number of times, approaching cars stopped at a traffic light and engaging the drivers in conversation. The arresting officer observed the juvenile acting in this manner on approximately forty previous occasions, and on the night of her arrest had earlier warned her to leave the streets.

Following a delinquency hearing in the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Dade County, the juvenile was found to have violated the "loitering" statute. Adjudication of delinquency was withheld and she was placed under the supervision of the Division of Youth Services. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, upheld the decision of the trial court. B. A. A., a juvenile v. State, 333 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976).

In State v. Ecker, supra, we construed Section 856.021, Florida Statutes, as requiring that " 'the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant' a finding that a breach of the peace is imminent or the public safety is threatened." 311 So.2d 104, 109. See also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 906 (1968). In Ecker, the elements of the offense which must be satisfied for conviction of loitering and prowling were set forth as:

"(1) the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals; (2) such loitering and prowling were under circumstances that warranted a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. This alarm is presumed under the statute if, when the law officer appears, the defendant flees, conceals himself, or refuses to identify himself. Prior to any arrest, the defendant must be afforded an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern by identifying himself and explaining his presence and conduct. If it appears at trial that the explanation is true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern, then the defendant may not be convicted under this statute." 311 So.2d 104, 106.

In the instant case, there are no specific and articulable facts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • American Civil Liberties Union v. Albuquerque
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1999
    ...to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct or to establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement officers); B.A.A. v. State, 356 So.2d 304, 306 (Fla.1978) ("The [loitering and prowling] statute is not to be used as a `catch-all' provision [w]hereby citizens may be detained by polic......
  • Dunn v. City of Boynton Beach
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • June 14, 2016
    ...facts" could "reasonably warrant a finding that a breach of the peace is imminent or the public safety is threatened." B. A. A. v. State , 356 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla.1978).b. Probable Cause for Possession of Burglary Tools Officer Munro also lacked probable cause to arrest Dunn for possession ......
  • State v. Caballero, s. 80-969
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 1981
    ...or concern for public safety, law enforcement officials may act to avert a breach of the peace or a criminal threat. B. A. A. v. State, 356 So.2d 304 (Fla.1978); State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975). The officer must, however, afford a pre-arrest opportunity to the suspect to dispel ala......
  • Simms v. State, 2D09-3971.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 2011
    ...E.B. v. State, 537 So.2d 148, 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (citing State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975)); see also B.A.A. v. State, 356 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla.1978) (citing Ecker, 311 So.2d at 109); L.C. v. State, 516 So.2d 95, 96-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). No one saw Mr. Simms crouching. Even if he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A loitering and prowling primer.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 71 No. 10, November - November 1997
    • November 1, 1997
    ...near dumpsters by a convenience store open for business, the store being a site of numerous recent crimes). [18] See B.A.A. v. State, 356 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1978) (a juvenile was approaching cars stopped at a traffic light and engaging them in conversation); Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT