IN THE INTEREST OF T.T., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 juvenile was charged with loitering and prowling under Florida law. The appellate court reversed his conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the two required elements of the offense.
The evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for loitering and prowling. The juvenile's belligerency and the officer's disbelief in explanations, occurring after the police stop, cannot be used to support the charge because all elements of the offense must occur in the officer's presence prior to any stop or identification attempt.
[1] To sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or…
[2] For an arrest for loitering and prowling, all elements of the offense must occur in the officer's presence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that: 'the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals [and] 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-part test required to sustain a loitering and prowling conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.T., a juvenile, was observed at 8:30 p.m. as a passenger in a parked car behind a closed business. The car remained in that location for five minute…
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
PER CURIAM.
T.T., a juvenile, was charged by delinquency petition with loitering and prowling in violation of section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1987). T.T. moved for a judgment of acquittal which the trial court denied. The court found T.T. guilty of the charged offense, adjudicated him delinquent, and committed him to H.R.S. for sixty days.
In order to sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling under section 856.021, Florida Statutes, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that: “the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals [and] 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.” State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104, 106 (Fla.1975); Lucien v. State, 557 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); D.A. v. State, 471 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). When there is an arrest for loitering and prowling all elements of the misdemeanor offense must occur in the officer’s presence. The failure to provide identification or a reasonable explanation for the questioned activity are not elements of the crime, and the criminal conduct must be completed prior to any attempt to identify or explain. Lucien, 557 So. 2d at 919.
The issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the two requisite elements for a charge of loitering. We have surveyed the evidence and determine as a matter of law that it is insufficient to sustain the conviction. The juvenile was first observed at 8:30 p.m. as a passenger in a car parked in a parking lot behind a closed business. The car remained in this location for five minutes. No one exited the car. When the vehicle left the parking lot, it was being driven at a slow but normal speed with its headlights off. The vehicle then stopped in response to the police emergency signals. Suffice it to say, the juvenile’s belligerency and the officer’s disbelief in the juvenile’s explanations, all coming after the stop, cannot be used to support the charge of loitering and prowling.
REVERSED.
WALDEN, GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.C. v. State, 724 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…the vicinity. See also State v. Freeman, 542 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing where the officer observed the defendant standing on a street corner in a group adjacent to a grocery store where drug dealing frequently occurred); T.T. v. State, 572 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (reversing where the officer observed the defendant in a parked car behind a closed business for about five minutes and saw the car drive away at a slow speed without headlights). We also recognize that the possession of the twe…
-
State v. Cortez, 705 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…The neighbor could only determine that it was a Florida tag as the car sped away. The neighbor did not obtain the license number. . Other cases relied on by defendant include K.R.R. v. State, 629 So. 2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); T.T. v. State, 572 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA T 990); and Springfield v. State, 481 So. 2d 975, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). .There are exceptions, see, e.g., id. § 901.15(5),(6), and (7), which do not apply here. . Because the decided cases so frequently overlook section 856.031, t…
-
K.R.R. v. State, 629 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…lsby’s stop of defendant was proper, in light of the reported crime at the nearby funeral parlor. However, since the offense of loitering and prowling is a misdemeanor, all elements of the offense must occur in the officer’s presence. T.T. v. State, 572 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See T.L.F. v. State, 536 So. 2d 371, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The fact remains that Goolsby never actually saw defendant do anything in his presence other than walk along railroad tracks at 12:30 a.m. This may be a violation of t…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- D.A. v. State, 471 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Lucien v. State, 557 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)