A. L. B. A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the adjudication of a juvenile as delinquent for burglary and petit theft, holding that police had a valid basis to stop the juvenile based on observations of suspicious conduct near a residence, and that any potential constitutional violations were either absent or harmless in light of independent evidence of guilt.
The court held that: (1) the officers had a legally well-founded concern for property safety justifying the stop under Florida Statutes Section 856.021; (2) probable cause existed for arrest on loitering and prowling charges; (3) the validity of detention is not affected by the formal charge being different from the initial basis for the stop; (4) the piggy bank evidence was discovered through independent legal means and was admissible; and (5) any error in admitting the juvenile's statements was harmless.
[1] Police officers observing a juvenile crouched in a yard at the rear of a private residence and dropping a piggy bank filled with coins have a legally well-founded concern…
[2] A juvenile's explanation for their presence and conduct does not necessarily dispel officers' concern for property safety, allowing for probable cause to arrest for loite…
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“when police officers on routine midday patrol observed the juvenile crouched down in a yard at the rear of a private residence and, as they approached closer and exited the patrol car, saw the juvenile walk away from the home and drop a glass piggy bank filled with coins, the officers had a legally well-founded concern for the safety of property in the vicinity so as to justify their stop of the juvenile”
Establishes the basis for the lawful police stop and the applicable legal standard for justifying an investigatory stop.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers on midday patrol observed a juvenile crouched in a yard at the rear of a private residence. As the officers approached and exited thei…
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 Loitering And Prowling cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We affirm the adjudication of delinquency based on underlying charges of burglary and petit theft upon a holding that (1) when police officers on routine midday patrol observed the juvenile crouched down in a yard at the rear of a private residence and, as they approached closer and exited the patrol car, saw the juvenile walk away from the home and drop a glass piggy bank filled with coins, the officers had a legally well-founded concern for the safety of property in the vicinity so as to justify their stop of the juvenile, Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1977); State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1975); (2) that concern was not dispelled by the juvenile’s explanation of his presence and conduct, and the officers therefore had probable cause to effect the arrest of the juvenile on a charge of loitering and prowling; (3) the fact that the police formally arrested the juvenile for a different crime (burglary) upon their discovery within minutes of stopping the juvenile that the home next door to where they first saw the juvenile had been burglarized and the piggy bank stolen therefrom does not affect the validity of the juvenile’s detention, Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla.3d DCA1981); (4) even if, arguendo, the juvenile’s explanation of his presence and conduct had been sufficient to dispel any concern or alarm, so as to make his detention unlawful, the evidence upon which the finding of guilt was rendered (that is, that the juvenile was seen in possession of and dropping a piggy bank which was taken that day from the burglarized home) was discovered by independent legal means and not through exploitation of any illegal detention of the juvenile and was thus admissible, see, e. g., United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S.Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939); Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); and (5) even if, arguen-do, the juvenile’s admissions to the police were inadmissible as being the fruit of an illegal detention of him, see Wong Sun v. United States, supra, the error in admitting such admissions was harmless.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.A. v. State, 471 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…nd prowling, compare, e.g., White v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); State v. Jones, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); T.J. v. State, 452 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Coron, 411 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); A.L.B. v. State, 399 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Caballero, 396 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Spurling, 385 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA), pet. for review denied, 392 So. 2d 1379 (Fla.1980), is not the same showing required to sustain a conviction for loitering o…
-
Chamson v. State, 529 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…r loitering or prowling); T.J. v. State, 452 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (when juveniles indicate they are selling avocados, but no avocados are in their possession, officer has probable cause to arrest for loitering or prowling); A.L.B. v. State, 399 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (where police see juvenile crouched in rear of private residence, walk away from the home, drop piggy bank filled with coins, officers have well-founded concern for safety of property in the vicinity). Because we conclude that t…
-
State v. Cote, 547 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…involved in criminal activity. The facts establish the reasonableness of that assessment and the actual existence of probable cause to support the arrests. See State v. McCormack, 517 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); Thomas v. State; A.L.B. v. State, 399 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981). The suppression order is therefore reversed. REVERSED AND REMANDED. GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur. . The fact that the defendants fled when they were confronted by the police is additional sup [*995] port for the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1920)
- Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1939)
- United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1978)
- State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975)
- Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)