Z.P. v. State, 82-1611
| Decision Date | 08 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1611,82-1611 |
| Citation | 440 So.2d 601 |
| Parties | Z.P., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Rory S. Stein, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and William P. Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON, and FERGUSON, JJ.
The juvenile herein appeals an adjudication of delinquency for loitering and prowling and for resisting arrest without violence. We must reverse on 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 1976).
The elements of loitering and prowling as set out in State v. Ecker, supra, are: (1) the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals; (2) such loitering and prowling were under circumstances that warranted a justifiable and reasonable claim or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. It is true the arresting officer was called to the scene upon a report of purse snatching the day before in the area and that a third person allegedly identified the juvenile as one of the purse snatchers. However, said act took place outside the presence of the officer and the state failed to introduce the testimony of the concerned individual citizen who observed the juvenile's conduct as required in State v. Ecker, supra, at page 111 in the consolidated case of Worth v. State. The juvenile also contends the arresting officer failed to give him an opportunity to explain his presence as required by Section 856.021 Florida Statutes (1981). The state suggests that it was not necessary to permit him to explain because probable cause coupled with flight completed or established the offense which could not be altered by a subsequent explanation of his presence. We cannot accept this suggestion because in L.L.J. v. State, supra, this court reversed an adjudication of delinquency for failure to give the juvenile an opportunity to explain his presence or conduct after flight. The conduct complained of to support the charge of resisting arrest without violence in violation of Section 843.02 Florida Statutes (1981) was that the juvenile gave the arresting officer a false name. This act occurred subsequent to the arrest and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.E.C. v. State
...presence of the arresting officer to constitute a legal arrest. See State v. Eldridge, 565 So.2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Z.P. v. State, 440 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); T.L.M. v. State, 371 So.2d 688, 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Here, the testimony was uncontroverted that G.E.C. was not obser......
-
Rumph v. State
...in flight after the taking and provides the evidence to sustain appellant's conviction for robbery. Next, relying on Z.P. v. State, 440 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), appellant argues that the conduct charged, i.e. giving a false name to the officer, occurred at a point in time after he had ......
-
McGee v. State, 95-0781
...an opportunity to dispel alarm by requesting Appellant to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. See Z.P. v. State, 440 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); § 856.021(2), Fla.Stat. We remand for further proceedings discharging the warrant and reinstating probation. DELL and STEVENS......
-
Olsen v. State, 96-153
...that the defendant gave the police a false name subsequent to his arrest. The defendant correctly argues that in Z.P. v. State, 440 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), this Court held that the giving of a false name subsequent to arrest cannot constitute the offense of resisting arrest without vi......
-
A loitering and prowling primer.
...establish a violation of Section 856.021, Florida Statutes, if properly established.[5] (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, in Z.P v. State, 440 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the Third District Court of Appeal suggested that if the state had produced at trial the citizen who reported the juveni......