JSB v. State, 97-04328.
| Decision Date | 17 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-04328.,97-04328. |
| Parties | J.S.B., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, Tampa, for Appellee.
We reverse J.S.B.'s conviction for loitering and prowling. We determine that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction.
At trial the State called only one witness, Deputy William Kelley of the Manatee County Sheriff's Office. Pursuant to a report that a burglary was in progress at a welding business, he arrived at the reported address at approximately 8:30 a.m. He testified that he observed an empty vehicle in the parking lot and proceeded to check the rear of the location. Behind the building he saw a ditch, a dirt road, a pasture that might have been fenced, and four young men about 20 feet from the building. The young men were walking and did not flee when they observed Deputy Kelley. Among the four was J.S.B. After receiving Miranda1 warnings, J.S.B. properly identified himself and indicated that they had pulled the car into the parking lot because it was overheating. He further advised the deputy that the boys were looking for water and a container to fill the radiator. Because he saw a water spigot and empty soda containers in the front of the building, the deputy doubted J.S.B.'s statement. The officer, who was the only witness, presented no evidence of burglary or an attempt. The State then rested and the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied.
The State must prove two elements to sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling. First, the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law abiding citizens; and, second, the loitering and prowling must be under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property located in the vicinity. See State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975)
. As to the first element the State must prove more than vaguely suspicious presence. As to the second, it must prove conduct that is alarming in nature, indicating an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety. See Von Goff v. State, 687 So.2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Further, because the crime is a misdemeanor, the elements of the offense must occur in the officer's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rinehart v. State, 2D99-4642.
...alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." § 856.021, Fla. Stat. (1997); see J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Where there is no evidence of an imminent threat to either persons or property no crime is committed. See R.M. v. Stat......
-
Fields v. State
...(Fla. 4th DCA 2013). A "vaguely suspicious presence" is insufficient to establish the first element of the crime. J.S.B. v. State, 729 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). This court has stated that "[b]efore the stop is ordered, that officer must observe conduct that creates the requisite a......
-
T.P. v. State
...was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for a stop where police observed nothing to corroborate claim); J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stating elements of loitering or prowling must occur in the officer's presence). Thus, the State failed to establish the......
-
J.D.H. v. State, 2D06-3974.
...concern for the safety of persons or property in the area. R.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Further, the defendant's actions must be so alarming as to create an imminent threat to public safety. R.M., 754 So.2d at ......