C.K. v. State, 85-1442
| Decision Date | 22 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1442,85-1442 |
| Citation | 487 So.2d 93,11 Fla. L. Weekly 948 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 948 C.K., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Meyer M. Brilliant and Arthur G. Luongo, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Michele L. Crawford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
A police officer, acting on a "suspicious persons" report, responded to a wooded area where four school-aged males, including appellant, were crouched, distributing what the officer believed to be coins. The officer ordered them to "stay where you are." They all fled. Appellant, discovered hiding under a trailer home not far away, was placed under arrest. He was adjudicated delinquent for obstructing a police officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty. Arguing the correctness of the adjudication, the State contends that the legal duty which the officer was executing was the detention and/or arrest for the crimes of loitering and prowling, theft, and/or unlawfully damaging a vending machine with intent to commit theft.
No evidence was presented by the State in support of any offense. Neither at the time when appellant was ordered to remain where he was nor when he was arrested was there an articulable suspicion that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a felony or misdemeanor.
R.L.L. v. State, 466 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), relied upon by the State, is, as appellant argues, clearly distinguishable. In that case the juvenile was in a vehicle with a person who was in apparent violation of a municipal ordinance and drug statute. 1 It was held there that "[a]lthough [appellant's] presence in itself might not have been probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest, the circumstances were such that the officers were entitled to briefly detain appellant while they pursued their investigation." Id. at 1231. In this case there was no justification for a detention or arrest because of the absence of a reasonable suspicion that laws were being violated. See Lee v. State, 368 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA) (Schwartz, J., specially concurring) (), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 349 (Fla.1979); Lowery v. State, 356 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (same); Marshall v. State, 354 So.2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA) (same), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 920, 98 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L.K.B. v. State, 95-2152
...an articulable suspicion that the defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit an offense. See, e.g., C.K. v. State, 487 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Here, although the police officer speculated that L.K.B. might rob the store or its customers (not a smart move for someon......
-
Nelson v. State
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1983), nor will it support a charge of obstructing a police officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty. C.K. v. State, 487 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Reece pursued Nelson on a mere hunch that Nelson's flight was suspicious. Once Reece found Nelson, Nelson complied with t......
-
R.S. v. State, 87-1961
...compare Johnson v. State, 433 So.2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also, B.H. v. State, 505 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); and C.K. v. State, 487 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. 1 Appellant lives with his mother at the apartment complex.2 Jacobson v.......
-
C.W. v. State, 87-1369
...despite direction to return could not constitute offense of obstructing officer in the execution of a lawful duty); C.K. v. State, 487 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) The adjudication of delinquency is, therefore, Affirmed. 1 The statute provides:843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his......