IN THE INTEREST OF O.W., A CHILD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A thirteen-year-old boy was adjudicated delinquent for loitering and prowling under Florida Statute § 856.021. The appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence that the child's conduct of climbing trees, playing in bushes, and running through fields constituted unusual activity for a young teenager, and that his explanation of skipping school was consistent with the circumstances and uncontradicted.
The evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication of delinquency. The State failed to demonstrate that climbing trees, playing in bushes, and running through woods constitutes unusual activity for a thirteen-year-old boy, and the appellant's explanation of skipping school was consistent with the circumstances of his arrest and uncontradicted by the State.
[1] A conviction for loitering and prowling requires proof that the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals,…
[2] Under Florida Statute Section 856.021, alarm for loitering and prowling is presumed if the defendant flees, conceals himself, or refuses to identify himself when a law en…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A conviction for loitering and prowling under Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1981) requires proof of two elements: (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 alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”
Establishes the two-element test for loitering and prowling under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer patrolling a residential area near a school on a school day observed three young boys, including the appellant, run through a field a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Justifiable And Reasonable Alarm cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
O.W., a child thirteen years of age, appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for violation of Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1981), loitering and prowling, a misdemeanor. The arresting officer while patroling in a residential area near a school and on a school day observed two young boys in a tree. While talking with the boys he heard a noise in some nearby bushes and saw three young boys, including appellant, run through a field where homes were located nearby. The officer called to the boys but they kept running. After chasing the boys for eight or nine blocks, the officer apprehended appellant. Notwithstanding appellant’s explanation that he was skipping school, the police officer arrested him and charged him with loitering and prowling. The officer testified that his suspicions were aroused because the boys were running away in an area which had the reputation of being a meeting place for student drug transactions.
A conviction for loitering and prowling under Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1981) requires proof of two elements:
(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 alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or prop erty in the vicinity. This alarm is presumed under the statute if, when a law officer appears, the defendant flees, conceals himself or refuses to identify himself. Prior to any arrest, the defendant must be afforded an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern by identifying himself and explaining his presence and conduct. If it appears at trial that the explanation is true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern, then the defendant may not be convicted under this statute.
State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104, 106 (Fla.1975).
We find the evidence insufficient to support this adjudication of delinquency. The State has not shown how climbing trees, playing in bushes or running through woods and fields constitutes an unusual activity for a thirteen year old boy. We find appellant’s explanation that he was skipping school consistent with the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the State offered no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence and remand this matter for entry of such further orders as may be consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.A. v. State, 471 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…to prior criminal activity as in Patmore. By way of further contrast, this element is also not directed at non-aberrant, harmless behavior which, by its very nature, poses no threat of immediate future criminal activity. For example, in In re O.W., 423 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), where a loitering and prowling adjudication was reversed, the police observed the juvenile, a 13-year-old boy, running with two companions from some bushes across a vacant field during school hours on a school day. When stopped,…
-
V.E. v. State, 539 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…t 151. Here, the state did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that V.E. was about to attempt to commit a criminal act. See L.S. v. State, 449 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); V.S. v. State, 446 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); In Interest of O.W., 423 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Neither did the state establish that the facts supported the second element necessary to convict the juvenile of loitering and prowling, i.e., that the defendant’s conduct warranted a justifiable and reasonable alarm and immedi…
-
P.R. v. State, 97 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…guely suspicious. However, that vaguely suspicious act, without more, does not come close to the commission or attempted commission of a crime, nor does it indicate an imminent breach of the peace or threat to public safety. See In Interest of O.W., 423 So. 2d 1029, 1029-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (where an officer heard a noise in some nearby bushes and saw the juvenile defendant run through a field, the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s adjudication of delinquency for loitering an prowling, ev…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975)