Woody v. State, 90-00508
| Decision Date | 19 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-00508,90-00508 |
| Citation | 581 So.2d 966 |
| Parties | Arthur Lee WOODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 581 So.2d 966, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1643 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gary R. Gossett, Jr., of McCollum & Gossett, P.A., Sebring, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Elaine L. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Arthur Lee Woody appeals from his convictions for loitering and prowling, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The convictions were entered upon his plea of nolo contendere in which he reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Woody contends that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest him for the crime of loitering and prowling. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.
At the hearing on the appellant's motion to suppress, Sergeant Busbee of the Lee County Sheriff's Department testified that at 6:40 p.m. he was in a marked patrol unit and entered a residential area known for its drug-related activity. He noticed a gathering of several males who immediately took flight. One of them, the appellant, entered and hid himself in an area of dense foliage thirty to forty feet from any residence. The sergeant approached the appellant and asked him to come out and explain what he was doing. The appellant replied that he was "just hanging out." This explanation did not satisfy the sergeant so he arrested the appellant for loitering and prowling. In the ensuing search incident to this arrest, a crack pipe containing cocaine residue was found on Woody's person. The sergeant stated that he arrested the appellant because he was hiding in the bushes and the sergeant was concerned for the safety of passersby who might be robbed or kidnapped by the appellant. The previous week the sergeant had warned the appellant that he could go to jail for loitering and prowling in this area.
No circumstance here suggests that either of the two elements of a proper arrest for loitering and prowling is present. The individual must loiter or prowl in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals and the circumstances must warrant a reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. B.A.A. v. State, 356 So.2d 304 (Fla.1978); State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.), cert. denied sub nom., Bell v. Florida, 423 U.S. 1019, 96...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L.K.B. v. State, 95-2152
...marginal, and any concern for the safety of persons or property in the immediate vicinity was speculative at best. See Woody v. State, 581 So.2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (conviction reversed where group of males in residential area known for drug activity scattered at approach of police and d......
-
Simms v. State, 2D09-3971.
...had a reasonable concern for imminent threat to persons or property. Our precedent compels this result. For example, in Woody v. State, 581 So.2d 966, 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), we held that the officer's concern for the safety of persons or property upon seeing appellant hiding in bushes "was......
-
S.K.W. v. State
...to be taking a roundabout route [112 So.3d 778]home” created requisite concern to establish loitering or prowling); Woody v. State, 581 So.2d 966, 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (officer's concern for safety of persons or property upon seeing appellant hiding in bushes “was not supported by any art......
-
McClamma v. State
...not establish a prima facie case of loitering or prowling. See In re O.W., 423 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also Woody v. State, 581 So.2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). More significantly, a refusal to identify oneself is limited by the fact that a person cannot be required to provide iden......
-
A loitering and prowling primer.
...numerous robberies); White v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1984) (the defendant was found asleep in his car); Woody v. State, 581 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1991) (the defendant was with a group of males in a residential area who fled at the sight of police; the defendant explain......