S. F. v. State, 77-1171
| Decision Date | 31 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1171,77-1171 |
| Citation | 354 So.2d 474 |
| Parties | S. F., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Linda Collins Hertz, Jose R. Rodriguez, and Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
This is a juvenile delinquency proceeding for loitering and prowling filed before the Juvenile Division of the Dade County Circuit Court. The juvenile was adjudicated delinquent as charged and appeals.
The controlling issue presented for review is whether it is essential to a successful prosecution for loitering and prowling under Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1975), for the state to establish that (a) the police prior to any arrest for the offense charged gave the accused an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the accused to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct, or (b) there were circumstances which made it impracticable for the police to give the accused such an opportunity. We hold that such a showing is essential to a successful prosecution for loitering and prowling under Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1975). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
The record reveals that the juvenile S.F. herein was charged by petition filed before the Juvenile Division of the Dade County Circuit Court with the offense of loitering and prowling. The sparse five pages of trial testimony in the record show that on the afternoon in question the juvenile herein and another juvenile walked through the open door of a private room on the second floor of a rooming house stating that they were looking for a job and wanted a cigarette. These actions and words caused alarm for the safety of the occupant of the room who in turn picked up a club and ordered the two juveniles out of his room. The juveniles thereupon left. No evidence was presented as to the arrest of the juvenile herein.
The trial court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent as charged and placed him under the supervision of the Florida Division of Youth Services. The trial court thereafter denied the juvenile's motion for a new trial, which denial is assigned as error and represents the sole point on appeal before this court.
Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1975), the statute under which the juvenile herein was charged and adjudicated delinquent, states the controlling law:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Caballero, s. 80-969
...afford a pre-arrest opportunity to the suspect to dispel alarm. Palmore v. State, 383 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); S. F. v. State, 354 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Defendant Caballero's explanation failed to dispel the officer's alarm, and the totality of circumstances justified the offic......
-
Patmore v. State, 79-1327
...his presence, unless the circumstances are such that it is impractical for the police to give him this opportunity. S. F. v. State, 354 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); L. L. J. v. State, 334 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); § 856.021(2), Fla.Stat. (1979). The statute is designed to proscribe con......
-
Z.P. v. State, 82-1611
...the authority of State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975); In the Interest of O.W., 423 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); S.F. v. State, 354 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); L.L.J. v. State, 334 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA The elements of loitering and prowling as set out in State v. Ecker, supra, are......
-
A loitering and prowling primer.
...case Bell, 3 11 So. 2d at 111, wherein the defendant was not questioned on the scene but rather testified at trial. In S.F. v. State, 354 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1978), the court held that the police must afford the suspect the opportunity to explain his actions and that the state may no......