S.K.W. v. State

Citation112 So.3d 775
Decision Date17 May 2013
Docket NumberNo. 2D12–1457.,2D12–1457.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
PartiesS.K.W., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

112 So.3d 775

S.K.W., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D12–1457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.

May 17, 2013.


[112 So.3d 776]


Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Christina Zuccaro, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


LaROSE, Judge.

S.K.W., a juvenile, appeals her adjudication and disposition of probation for loitering or prowling. See§ 856.021(1), Fla. Stat. (2011). Because the evidence is insufficient to establish loitering or prowling, we reverse.1

S.K.W. and another girl, A.K.A., were arrested for loitering or prowling in a neighborhood after a resident called the police to report that he had seen two girls walk around the side of a vacant house. The resident saw the girls walking down the street as he was driving home. They were not from the neighborhood. He observed them knock on the door of a neighbor's house, talk to that neighbor, and then walk over to the vacant house.

Arriving at the scene, Officer Putman saw the two girls walking on the second-floor wrap-around porch from the back of house toward the front entry door. 2 He directed the girls to come down; they complied. Responding to Officer Putman's questions about their purpose, the girls said that “they were just hanging out.” The girls provided their names and their street addresses, although they could not recall their exact numeric addresses. Neither girl had any drugs or weapons. Each had a cell phone and a cigarette lighter.

Officer Westmoreland arrived as backup. He inspected the house and found no signs of entry, damage, or theft. The officers arrested the girls for loitering or prowling.

[112 So.3d 777]

Section 856.021(1) defines loitering or prowling as follows:

It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

This conduct must come close to but fall short of an actual offense and suggest that a breach of the peace is imminent. Rucker v. State, 921 So.2d 857, 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Grant v. State, 854 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). An imminent threat to the safety of persons or property is key. E.B. v. State, 537 So.2d 148, 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (citing State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975)); accord Simms v. State, 51 So.3d 1264, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). “[T]he mere suspicion of future conduct is insufficient.” Rucker, 921 So.2d at 859 (citing R.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)).


The State relies on C.H.S. v. State, 795 So.2d 1087, 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), for the proposition that alarm is presumed if the suspect flees, attempts concealment, or refuses identification. The State contends that S.K.W. “partially refused to identify herself by withholding her address and phone number from the officer.” But, when Officer Putman asked the girls for identifying information, they gave their names and identified the streets on which they lived. He asked A.K.A., the other girl with S.K.W., for her parents' phone number, and she stated she did not know. He asked her if her parents' phone number could be found on her cell phone, and she answered yes. The record does not reflect that S.K.W. refused to provide parental or other information. Officer Putman specifically stated that the girls did not refuse to identify themselves.

The resident who called the police testified, “I said just send an officer over there and tell them they're not supposed to be there or slap them on the wrist and send them home. That's all I wanted to do.” He described the vacant house as “a two-story pink really fancy-looking rich type of a house.” He had never seen the girls before and “they came from out of the neighborhood.” He stated that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Herrera v. State, Case No. 2D18-3709
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 2019
    ...this court has recognized that conviction of a crime that never occurred constitutes fundamental error. See S.K.W. v. State, 112 So. 3d 775, 776 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). By analogy then, a probationer should not be found in violation of a condition of probation where that violation had not y......
  • McClamma v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 2014
    ...panel, that discuss whether an officer has “probable cause” to arrest someone for loitering or prowling. See, e.g., S.K.W. v. State, 112 So.3d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Rucker v. State, 921 So.2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). These cases use this phrase loosely. The concept is not the same as the “......
  • W.D. v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 2014
    ...where police may arrest persons when there is no other basis that justifies their detention; collecting cases); S.K.W. v. State, 112 So.3d 775, 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (explaining the elements of loitering and prowling and collecting cases); Mills v. State, 58 So.3d 936, 939–40 (Fla. 2d DCA ......
  • Saltzman v. Hadlock
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2013

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT