STEPHEN ROBINSON, 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.
Stephen Robinson was convicted of possession of cocaine and loitering following a nolo contendere plea after police stopped and arrested him based on a bomb threat phone call. The appellate court reversed both convictions, finding the arrest unlawful and the loitering charge unsupported by evidence of behavior indicating future criminal activity.
The court reversed both convictions. The arrest was unlawful because a defendant's refusal to cooperate during a Terry stop cannot itself constitute a crime consistent with Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections, and a lawful arrest is essential to the offense of obstructing justice. The loitering charge failed because Robinson's behavior, even if he made the bomb threat, did not point to the possibility of future criminal activity as required by the loitering statute.
[1] A defendant's failure to cooperate during a lawful investigatory stop, including refusal to answer questions, cannot itself constitute criminal conduct consistent with Fo…
[2] A lawful arrest is an essential element of the offense of resisting arrest without violence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The defendant's failure to cooperate — his refusal to answer questions — cannot itself be criminal consistent with fourth and fifth amendment protections.”
Establishes the core constitutional principle that uncooperativeness during a Terry stop cannot be criminalized.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson, a black man, was observed walking near the Ocala Police Station parking lot shortly after 6:00 a.m. Minutes later, an officer received a pho…
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
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Stephen Robinson, was convicted, pursuant to a nolo contendere plea, of possession of cocaine and loitering. Evidence adduced at hearing on motions to suppress and dismiss revealed that Robinson, a black man, was seen shortly after 6:00 a.m. walking near the Ocala Police Station parking lot. Several minutes after he walked away, a telephone call was received at the station by Police Officer Cer-ny, who heard a voice she identified as that of a black male say: “I just put a bomb in one of your cars.”
A few moments later, Robinson was observed walking back towards the station. Knowing that phone booths were available in the immediate area, the police stopped Robinson for questioning. Robinson said he had no identification upon his person and refused to identify himself by name. He refused to answer several of the officers’ questions. Officer Cerny, listening to Robinson’s discussion with the interrogating officers, said his voice sounded similar to the voice on the telephone. After listening to a recording of the phone call back in the station, she believed the voices were the same.
Officer McBride arrested the defendant for “obstructing justice without violence.” The information, however, charged the defendant with loitering or prowling under section 856.021(1), Florida Statutes, and with possession of cocaine recovered during the search incident to the arrest.
The defendant’s failure to cooperate — his refusal to answer questions — cannot itself be criminal consistent with fourth and fifth amendment protections. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Steele v. State, 537 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Burgess v. State, 313 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) certified question dismissed 326 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1976). The state’s argument would effectively render all uncooperative Terry-stop detainees criminals. A lawful arrest is an essential element of the offense of resisting arrest without violence. Johnson v. State, 395 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Lee v. State, 368 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1979).
In light of the unlawful arrest, the motion to suppress should have been granted.
Accordingly, the conviction for possession of cocaine under count I of the information must be reversed.
The elements of a prima facie case of loitering or prowling require proof that the defendant was loitering or prowling in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, and such loitering or prowling must give rise to 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 (Fla.), cert. denied by Bell v. Florida, 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975); Chamson v. State, 529 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 539 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1988); State v. Rash, 458 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
While the appellant’s bomb threat might amount to a prima facie violation of section 790.-164,1 and assuming, arguendo, that Officer Cerny’s voice identification of the appellant was accurate, nothing in the defendant’s behavior pointed to the possibility of future criminal activity. See State v. Levin, 452 So. 2d 562 (Fla.1984); Chamson at 1161; Rash at 1204; D.A. v. State, 471 So. 2d 147, 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); White v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), petition for review denied, 464 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1985).
Therefore, the appellant’s motion to dismiss the loitering charge should have been granted.
REVERSED.
DANIEL, C.J., and HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur. . 790.164 False reports of bombing or arson against state-owned property; penalty; reward.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to make a false report, with intent to deceive, mislead, or otherwise misinform any person, concerning the placing or planting of any bomb, dynamite, or other deadly explosive, or concerning any act of arson or other violence to property owned by the state or any political subdivision. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.K.B. v. State, 697 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…Interest of B.M., 553 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also S.G.K.; Harris v. State, 647 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Breedlove v. State, 605 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); F.B. v. State, 605 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Robinson v. State, 550 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Steele v. State, 537 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Burgess v. State, 313 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), certified question denied, 326 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1976). Perhaps this case is more about social mores than law. It is not un…
-
Chambers v. State, 700 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…o tape, that they could compel Chambers to provide them with his identification papers. This court has held that a defendant’s failure to cooperate by answering questions concerning his identity is not itself criminal conduct. See Robinson v. State, 550 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). See also St. George v. State, 564 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). But this point is not dispositive of this case. Mere police questioning does not by itself constitute a seizure. Even though officers have no basis to suspect an…
-
J.R. v. State, 627 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…f arresting J.R.; however, we reverse the trial court’s finding that J.R. committed the offense of resisting an officer without violence, which was based on J.R.’s refusal to give his name to the police prior to being arrested. In Robinson v. State, 550 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), we held that a defendant’s failure to cooperate with the police by refusing to answer questions or identify himself by name cannot itself be criminal conduct consistent [*127] with fourth and fifth amendment protections.4…
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 (16 total)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975)
- D.A. v. State, 471 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Hicks v. Virginia, 423 U.S. 1019 (U.S. 1975)
- Rivera v. United States, 423 U.S. 1019 (U.S. 1975)
- LEE v. State, 368 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Johnson v. State, 395 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- State v. Levin, 452 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1984)
- Bryant v. State, 313 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Chamson v. State, 529 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)