ROBERT FOX, 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.
Robert Fox appeals his convictions for cocaine possession and trespass after warning. The court affirmed, holding that a police officer had authority to warn Fox to leave a public housing project and subsequently arrest him for trespass when he returned after the warning.
The officer had authority to warn Fox to leave the premises. On public premises, 'authorized persons' include those designated to exercise control over the property. The project manager, as a public employee managing the publicly owned housing project, could authorize police to warn trespassers, and no particular form of words or written authorization was necessary to confer such authority.
[1] A police officer acting on behalf of a public housing project manager may be an authorized person to warn individuals to leave the premises under a trespass statute.
[2] Authorization for a police officer to warn trespassers to leave public premises does not require a specific form of words or a written directive from the property owner.
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“On public premises, authorized personnel includes those persons who have been given either express or implied authority from the chief executive.”
Establishes the standard for who qualifies as an 'authorized person' under the trespass statute on public property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Gonzalez, a member of a crime suppression team, observed Fox on the grounds of the Modello Housing Project, a publicly owned housing project i…
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 Trespass After Warning cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Fox appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine and trespass after warning. We affirm.
Officer Edwin Gonzalez is a member of a crime suppression team which patrols the public housing project involved in this case, the Modello Housing Project, as well as other sites, in order to control crime and narcotics problems in those locations. The Modello Housing Project is posted with “no trespassing” signs on all of the buildings. On January 4 officer Gonzalez observed defendant on the premises, ascertained that he had no reason to be there, and advised him either to leave the project or be arrested for trespassing. Defendant departed.
The next afternoon at 4 p.m., the same officer again observed defendant on the grounds of the Modello Project. He again ascertained that defendant had no reason to be there and again warned him to leave. At 9 p.m. the same day, the officer again observed defendant at the Modello Project. At that time he arrested defendant for trespass after warning. In a search incident to the arrest, the officer found cocaine on defendant’s person. Defendant was tried and convicted for possession of cocaine and trespass after warning.
Defendant’s principal contention on this appeal is that the officer did not have the authority to warn him to leave the premises, and therefore could not arrest him for trespass after warning. We disagree.
The trespass statute creates a misdemeanor penalty “[i]f the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person_” § 810.09(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989) (emphasis added). In the present case the Modello Project is a publicly owned housing project managed by a Dade County employee. “On public premises, authorized personnel includes those persons who have been given either express or implied authority from the chief executive.” State v. Dye, 346 So. 2d 538, 542 (Fla.1977). Under Dye, public employees who have been designated “to exercise control over [public] property constitute the class of ‘other authorized persons’ under the statute.” Id. The project manager in the present case is clearly such a person.
At trial both the project manager and the arresting officer testified about the relationship between the Modello Project and the police department with respect to efforts to control crime and the sale of drugs. The project manager certainly has the authority to enlist the assistance of the police. No particular form of words is needed in order to confer on the police the authority to warn trespassers to leave the premises, nor was it necessary under the statute that the manager’s authorization to the police be given in writing. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence on which the trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the police had been given the authorization to warn trespassers to leave the premises.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.M. v. State, 95 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…pass warnings?” The deputy responded, “We do.” This, however, is insufficient to establish that the deputy had “been given either express or implied authority from the chief executive” of the library. See Dye, 346 So. 2d at 541-42; cf. Fox v. State, 580 So. 2d 313, 314 [*921] (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding sufficient evidence of authorization where, despite a lack of explicit testimony that chief executive gave police officer authority to issue trespass warnings, “[a]t trial both the [public housing] project man…
-
J.G. v. State, 114 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…s warnings pursuant to section 810.09, Florida Statutes (2011). To substantiate the argument that the officers’ testimonies were inadequate to establish the provenance of their authority as agents of Robles Park, defense counsel cited Fox v. State, 580 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Defense counsel argued by contrast, saying that the State in Fox had properly presented evidence to fulfill the elements of the same charged crime, particularly the authority of the arresting officer, through testimony of the man…1 / 2
-
Avery Jones v. State, 613 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…s grounds for belief that the appellant had violated the statute. Particularly, there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice to the defendant against entering or remaining on the grounds of the public housing complex. Compare Fox v. State, 580 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA) (defendant’s conviction for trespass on public housing project sustained where police officer twice warned the defendant to leave premises but defendant defied the orders), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1991). For that reason the se…
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. DYE, 346 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1977)