Hardie v. State
| Decision Date | 19 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 46319,46319 |
| Citation | 333 So.2d 13 |
| Parties | James HARDIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Warner S. Olds, Public Defender, and Robert S. Horowitz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen R. Koons, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This case concerns the constitutional application of Florida's new loitering statute, Section 856.021, Florida Statutes, 1 as construed by this Court in State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.,1975). Since the trial court directly passed on the validity of this statute, we have jurisdiction. 2
The facts of this incident are as follows. Police officers at 2:55 a.m. first noticed appellant sitting slouched in the front seat of a station wagon, one of several automobiles parked at a closed service station. They observed him remain in the car for a few minutes, then exit it, move to another, enter it, and move around in it a bit. The area was well lighted by street lamps and the interior dome light in the second automobile.
One officer testified he saw appellant riffling through the contents of the glove compartment in the second automobile. When the officer subsequently observed the interior of the second car, what appeared to be the contents of the glove compartment were scattered on the front seat. While appellant was in the second car, the officers approached, one of them rapping on the vehicle's window to draw appellant's attention. One officer testified to the ensuing inquiry:
'. . . I said, 'Police officers.' He just sat there. I said, 'Is this your car?' He said, 'Yes.' So, we asked him to step from the vehicle and provide some identification. He said he didn't have any. I asked him what his name was. He said his name was Jim Hardie. I didn't understand him and I asked him to repeat his name. He did. I asked him what his address was. He said, Then we asked him--I asked him again, 'Is this your car?' He said, 'No, it's not my car.' I said, 'What were you doing in the other vehicle?' He said, 'I wasn't in another vehicle."
Appellant was arrested following the conversation.
At trial he testified he was merely walking through the gas station and had entered no automobile when arrested.
We hold that the behavior observed by the police, the time of day, and appellant's failure to properly identify himself constituted circumstances warranting justifiable and reasonable alarm and immediate concern for the safety of property in the vicinity. We held, in State v. Ecker, supra, that under circumstances where the public safety was threatened by an individual, no constitutional provision was violated in requiring credible and reliable identification, citing California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971). We recognized a suspect cannot be compelled to explain his presence and conduct without first being advised of his Miranda rights, but an individual nevertheless may be required to identify himself when the public safety is endangered.
The observations alone of the police officers in this case, reflected in their testimony, establish overwhelming evidence of alarm for the safety of property in the vicinity and justify a finding of guilt. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).
Affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.A. v. State
...or prowling convictions have uniformly involved incipient crime situations which satisfy this element. For example, in Hardie v. State, 333 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976), the convicted defendant was observed at 2:55 a.m. rummaging through two separate cars at a closed gas station, but before he made ......
-
Springfield v. State
...of a private dwelling at 1:20 a.m. obviously threatened the safety of persons and property in the said dwelling. And in Hardie v. State [333 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976) ] which affirmed a loitering and prowling conviction, the defendant's actions in rummaging through two cars at a closed gas statio......
-
GG v. State, 4D04-2103.
...situations which satisfy" the second element of the statute. D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147, 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also Hardie v. State, 333 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976) (defendant observed at 2:55 a.m. rummaging through two separate cars at a closed gas station); Bell v. State, 311 So.2d 104, (......
-
Vollmer v. State
...92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612. And, where the public safety is endangered, identification may properly be requested. Cf., Hardie v. State, Fla.1976, 333 So.2d 13. But here, there was no evidence of any danger to the public safety and there were no circumstances to justify the police to susp......
-
A loitering and prowling primer.
...An example of present criminal activity where a loitering and prowling charge was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court is Hardie v. State, 333 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976), in which the defendant was observed at 2:55 a.m. rummaging through two cars at a closed gas station but before he had made any......