Chamson v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2862,86-2862 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1449,529 So.2d 1160 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1449 John B. CHAMSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Burke, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
After pleading nolo contendere to charges of possession of cocaine and loitering or prowling, and reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine, defendant Chamson filed this appeal. We reverse.
At approximately 10:00 P.M. on March 20, 1986, Chamson entered the Charles Hotel and walked toward the stairs. The manager of the hotel requested that Chamson leave. At the third request, Chamson complied. Around 11:30 P.M., after learning that Chamson was crouching in an alley next to the hotel, the manager called the police. When the police officer arrived, Chamson told him he was visiting a friend in the hotel, but did not recall either the friend's name or room number. After advising Chamson that he would be placed under arrest for loitering or prowling if he did not identify himself or explain his purpose for being in the area, and receiving no response, the officer arrested Chamson. A search incident to the arrest revealed the cocaine Chamson sought to suppress. Chamson maintained that the officer searched him without a warrant and arrested him without probable cause to believe he was loitering or prowling.
The offense of loitering or prowling, as proscribed by section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1985), has two distinct elements (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 or prowling took place under circumstances that warranted a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104, 106 (Fla.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975); D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Because the offense of loitering or prowling is a misdemeanor, a police officer may arrest without a warrant only if both elements of the crime are committed in the officer's presence. § 901.15(1), Fla.Stat. (1985); see Carter v. State, 516 So.2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); T.L.M. v. State, 371 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
At the suppression hearing, the police officer testified that he found Chamson crouching near a dumpster in a public alley. He stated that Chamson's answers did not dispel his concerns for the safety of businesses immediately south of the hotel. These facts, however, do not establish the probable cause necessary to arrest Chamson for loitering or prowling. In this case, the police officer failed 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." Ecker, 311 So.2d at 109; see Springfield v. State, 481 So.2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (); White v. State, 458 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (), review denied, 464 So.2d 556 (Fla.1985); see also B.A.A. v. State, 356 So.2d 304 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alvarez v. City of Hialeah
...juvenile in car parked in front of closed grocery store; no facts supported founded suspicion of loitering). See also Chamson v. State, 529 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(loitering arrest unlawful where police do not observe any behavior that threatens public safety); Carter v. State, 516 So......
-
Simms v. State, 2D09-3971.
...cause exist[s] to make a warrantless arrest." Freeman v. State, 617 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (citing Chamson v. State, 529 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)); Springfield, 481 So.2d at 977); see also D.L.B. v. State, 685 So.2d 1340, 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Finally, we note that......
-
Robinson v. State, 88-1899
...v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.), cert. denied by Bell v. Florida, 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975); Chamson v. State, 529 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 539 So.2d 476 (Fla.1988); State v. Rash, 458 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). While the appellant's bomb threat ......
-
Hussey v. State
...2002); Lee v. State, 868 So.2d 577, 582-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); D.G. v. State, 831 So.2d 256, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Chamson v. State, 529 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 539 So.2d 476 (Fla.1988); see also Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570......
-
A loitering and prowling primer.
...which had been recently burglarized; the court held that there was no probable cause for loitering and prowling); Chamson v. State, 529 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1988) (at 10:00 p.m. the defendant entered a hotel and walked towards the stairs; after three requests from the manager to leav......