T.L.F. v. State, 87-3057
| Decision Date | 30 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3057,87-3057 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 89,536 So.2d 371 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 89 T.L.F., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Laura Griffin, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to charges of burglary of a structure and theft, reserving the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. After his adjudication of delinquency for those charges, he timely appealed. We reverse.
Appellant was arrested for loitering and prowling outside the office building of Crump, Mann and Webb Insurance in Fort Myers. Officers Nicholson and Jelks, of the Fort Myers Police Department, arrived at the Crump building on a weekday morning during business hours in response to a radio call that an unidentified individual was sleeping in a car. Officer Jelks, who first arrived at the scene, observed appellant standing outside the rear of the Crump building talking to a Crump employee and a construction worker. Appellant was dressed in pants and shoes but was not wearing a shirt. Another Crump employee pointed out appellant as someone who had been loitering in the past around the building. The employee also told Officer Jelks that the building had been broken into a few days earlier and had been vandalized.
When Officer Nicholson arrived, he attempted to question appellant. Appellant refused to identify himself, reluctantly providing only his first name, and he would not explain his presence at the rear of the building. Officer Nicholson arrested appellant for loitering and prowling. A search incident to the arrest revealed a set of keys, which were identified as the keys to the Crump building. The officer read appellant his Miranda rights and appellant then confessed to the burglary of the insurance office which had occurred a few days earlier. Appellant's confession and his possession of the keys led to his arrest for burglary and theft.
The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress the confession and the keys, because the officers did not have probable cause to arrest appellant for loitering and prowling. A police officer may make a warrantless arrest for loitering and prowling only if the officer observes the accused: (1) loitering and prowling in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, and (2) under circumstances warranting a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. See State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975); Chamson v. State, 529 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Since loitering and prowling is a misdemeanor, only the officer's own observations may be considered in determining whether probable cause exists to make a warrantless arrest for loitering and prowling. Ecker; Chamson; Springfield v. State, 481 So.2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.M. v. State
...E.C. v. State, 724 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (loitering statute is not directed at mere idling); see T.L.F. v. State, 536 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)(no probable cause to arrest appellant for loitering and prowling where officers observed shirtless appellant conversing with two ......
-
Dunn v. City of Boynton Beach
..." ‘catchall’ criminal offense" when the police can "not prove anything else." Ecker , 311 So.2d at 112 ; see also T.L.F. v. State , 536 So.2d 371, 373 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (referring to "the dark ages when police were able to use the loitering and prowling statute as a catchall charge to ......
-
L.K.B. v. State
...was standing with group on street corner adjacent to grocery store and group dispersed on approach of police officers); T.L.F. v. State, 536 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (no probable cause where police observed defendant standing at rear of building during business hours and where defendant......
-
Simms v. State, 2D09-3971.
...for loitering or prowling on residents' report of seeing black male in their back yard carrying something); cf. T.L.F. v. State, 536 So.2d 371, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (holding officers could not properly consider bystander's identification of appellant as burglary suspect in determining whe......
-
A loitering and prowling primer.
...arrest. [2] See id. [3] Fla. Stat. [sections] 901.15(l). [4] Springfield v. State, 481 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1986); T.L.F v. State, 536 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. [5] State v, Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104, 111 (Fla. 1975) (emphasis added). [6] Z.P., 440 So. 2d at 601. [7] D.A. v. State, 471 ......