D.S.D. v. State
Decision Date | 19 December 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 5D07-2789.,No. 5D07-2790.,5D07-2789.,5D07-2790. |
Citation | 997 So.2d 1191 |
Parties | D.S.D., a Child, and J.T.D., a Child, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellants.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
D.S.D. and J.T.D. appeal adjudications of delinquency for loitering and prowling. We reverse.
Winter Park Police Officer Barber received a prowler report at about 3:30 a.m. in the area of Oakhurst Avenue and made contact with Appellants at a street corner two blocks from the vicinity of the report. Both wore all black. They did not flee when they saw the officer, but identified themselves and indicated they were looking for a friend named Ashley who was supposed to be waiting for them at the corner of Magnolia and Lakemont, about ten blocks away. Appellants thought they were lost and said they were going home, about two and a half miles away. Officer Barber arrested them because they did not know Ashley's last name, were not heading homeward as they indicated, were not on the street they were looking for, and based on the prowler report. Incident to arrest, he searched them and found a pair of cloth gloves in J.T.D.'s front pocket.
Appellants moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the State failed to prove a prima facie case of loitering and prowling. The trial court denied the motion, adjudicated them delinquent, and sentenced each of the juveniles to six months' probation.
In order to obtain a conviction for loitering and prowling, the State must show (1) the accused was loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law-abiding citizens, and (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 located in the vicinity. § 856.021, Fla. Stat. (2007); C.H.S. v. State, 795 So.2d 1087, 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The gist of the first element is aberrant and suspicious criminal conduct that comes close to, but falls short of, the actual commission or attempted commission of a substantive crime. D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147, 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). It does not, however, involve behavior that constitutes no threat of imminent criminal activity. Id. The second element requires a showing of circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property located in the vicinity. Alarm is presumed under the statute if the defendant flees, conceals himself or any object, or refuses to identify himself when a law officer appears. State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104, 106 (Fla.1975).
The elements of loitering and prowling were not met in this case. Appellants' presence in a residential neighborhood early in the morning, without more, does not support the charge. See V.E. v. State, 539 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ( ).
A review of the cases interpreting the statute is instructive. Standing around behind a closed business late at night or early in the morning in an area noted for burglaries does not, without more, amount to the crime of loitering and prowling. C.H.S., 795 So.2d at 1091. Such conduct, even when joined with a recent report of criminal activity, does not suffice to prove loitering and prowling. J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ( ); K.R.R. v. State, 629 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ( ).
Officer Barber was justified in questioning Appellants when he discovered them wearing dark clothes, in the area of a 3:30 a.m. prowler report. During his encounter, however, no additional facts came to light to support an arrest for loitering and prowling. Even when an individual's conduct justifies an officer's alarm, the concern for an imminent breach of the peace may diminish because the loitering and prowling statute requires the officer to provide the person with the opportunity to dispel any alarm...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hefner v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...to conceal himself. TB. v. State, --- S.3d ---, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1266b (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (emphasis added); D.S.D. v. Stale, 997 So. 2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The record in the case subjudice clearly demonstrates probable cause to arrest Mr. Hefner for loitering and prowling. Co......
-
Harris v. Rambosk
...the officer to provide the person with the opportunity to dispel any alarm created by those circumstances." D.S.D. v. State, 997 So. 2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)(citation omitted). Deputy Chapman argues he had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for loitering and prowling because (1) Pl......
-
Hunter v. State
...to closed businesses in the late evening is insufficient to justify alarm of imminent criminal activity. See also D.S.D. v. State, 997 So.2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Because they were as close to the residences as they were to the churches, the facts do not suggest that they were eng......
-
McClamma v. State
...26 Harv. J. on Legis. 1 (1989). 6. We recognize that many cases describe loitering in this fashion. For example in D.S.D. v. State, 997 So.2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), the court said: “The gist of the first element is aberrant and suspicious criminal conduct that comes close to, but f......
-
Crimes
...vague description of what he was doing there. Held: Court errs in finding defendant guilty of loitering (cases cited). D.S.D. v. State, 997 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) 10-79 Crimes: Possession Generally 10.23 CRIMES 10.23 CRIMES: POSSESSION GENERALLY Topics covered: What constitutes “po......