L.R.D., JR., 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.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because the officers had probable cause to take the minor into custody for truancy, independent of potentially invalid computer information.
Police officers took a minor into custody believing he was truant and found marijuana during a search. The minor argued the marijuana should be suppre…
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 Truancy cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
L.R.D., Jr., a minor, appeals an order adjudicating him delinquent of possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana. We affirm because the trial court properly denied L.R.D.’s motion to suppress.
Police officers took L.R.D. into custody because they believed he was truant. In addition, the officers checked a truancy center’s computer records and found that L.R.D. was listed as a truant. In searching L.R.D. in preparation for taking him to a truancy center, the officers found marijuana in L.R.D.’s pocket. Contrary to the computer records, it appears that in fact L.R.D.’s absence from school was authorized, and he contends that the marijuana should have been suppressed because there was invalid information on the computer.
We conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because the officers had probable cause to take L.R.D. into custody, exclusive of the computer information. A child may be taken into custody by a law enforcement officer “when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the child is absent from school without authorization or is suspended or expelled and is not in the presence of his or her parent or legal guardian, for the purpose of delivering the child without unreasonable delay to the appropriate school system site.” § 984.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied).
Here, the police found L.R.D. talking to a young woman in a bus terminal, one of the truancy “hot spots.” L.R.D. told the police officer that he was sixteen years old and not in school. L.R.D. was not in the presence of a legal guardian. Upon an initial check with the truancy center, the officer learned that L.R.D. was not registered as a student in Orange County. This gave the officers reasonable grounds to take L.R.D. into custody for truancy. The order denying L.R.D. s motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.C. v. State, 31 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ght was suspicious enough to warrant stopping him. The officer testified that he also stopped K.C. because he appeared to be a juvenile and should have been in school at that time of day. See, e.g. § 984.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008); L.R.D. v. State, 876 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The trial court denied KC.’s motion to suppress. K.C. pleaded nolo and he received a withhold of adjudication on the second degree felony charge of burglary unoccupied, and was put on one year probation, with a curfew and comm…