Freeman v. State, 92-1857
| Decision Date | 28 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1857,92-1857 |
| Citation | 617 So.2d 432 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D1083 William FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Freeman appeals his judgment, sentence and restitution order for violation of probation. We reverse.
While on probation, the State filed a corrected affidavit of violation of probation based on Freeman's arrest for loitering and prowling. At a hearing on Freeman's alleged probation violation, the arresting officer testified that he had been dispatched at 3:20 a.m. to investigate a complaint about two black men carrying a burlap bag and hanging around parked cars in a residential complex. When the arresting officer arrived, he saw two black men, one of whom was Freeman, jump over a six-foot high wall that surrounded the residential complex and land near a rear parking lot of a fast food restaurant. Both men ran when they saw the officer but stopped when he threatened to turn loose a police dog. Neither man was carrying a burlap bag when the officer approached them. Both men were arrested for loitering and prowling. Shortly thereafter, Freeman's companion told the officer where to find the burlap bag, which contained gloves and a gun.
The offense of loitering and prowling has two elements: (1) the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or 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 in the vicinity. Section 856.021, Fla.Stat. (1991). Because the offense of loitering and prowling is a misdemeanor, a police officer may only make a warrantless arrest for this offense if both elements of the crime are committed in his presence. Chamson v. State, 529 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 539 So.2d 476 (Fla.1988). Consequently, only a police officer's own observations may be considered in determining whether probable cause existed to make a warrantless arrest. Springfield v. State, 481 So.2d 975, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA1986). The officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts, which, when taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant a finding that a breach of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simms v. State, 2D09-3971.
...own observations may be considered in determining whether probable 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. St......
-
McClamma v. State
...in the presence of the officer who orders the stop. See D.L.B. v. State, 685 So.2d 1340, 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Freeman v. State, 617 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). A stop that is only for loitering or prowling must almost always be an arrest for that offense and rarely, if ever, can......
-
Grant v. State, 4D02-839.
...be committed in the officer's presence prior to arrest. See Erceg v. State, 697 So.2d 572, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Freeman v. State, 617 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The evidence presented in this case does not show the presence of either element of the crime of loitering and prowli......
-
Wright v. State
...inferences, reasonably warrant a finding that a breach of the peace is imminent or the public safety is threatened.Freeman v. State, 617 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (internal citation omitted). We may consider the observations of all the officers who observed the defendant. See State......