MELVIN BREEDLOVE, 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.
Appellant's conviction for resisting arrest without violence is reversed because the officer lacked articulable suspicion to stop him, and therefore the officer was not engaged in lawful execution of a legal duty.
An officer lacks articulable suspicion to justify a stop based solely on suspicious or furtive movements and flight, even in a high crime area, and therefore a defendant cannot be convicted of resisting arrest for fleeing from an unlawful stop.
[1] Suspicious or furtive movements combined with flight, even in a high crime area, do not provide articulable suspicion justifying a stop and detention.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Suspicious or furtive movements are not reasonable grounds to justify a stop and detention, even when combined with flight in a high crime area.”
Court citing Daniels v. State to establish the legal standard for what constitutes sufficient grounds for a stop.
Officer Arney attempted to stop appellant Breedlove while he was crossing a vacant field; when the officer approached, Breedlove made a furtive moveme…
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 High Crime Area cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant moved for judgment of acquittal on a charge of resisting arrest without violence because he claimed that the officer was not engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty when trying to stop appellant. See Nelson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA1989). The state charged that appellant resisted arrest by fleeing from Officer Arney when he attempted to stop appellant. The issue is whether the officer had an articulable suspicion of illegal activity when he attempted the stop. The officer saw appellant crossing a vacant field. When appellant saw the officer, he made a furtive movement as if to hide something behind his back and ran away. The officer ordered appellant to stop and then pursued but lost sight of appellant. This is insufficient to justify a stop. “Suspicious or furtive movements are not reasonable grounds to justify a stop and detention, even when combined with flight in a high crime area.” Daniels v. State, 543 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA1989). See also Nelson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA1989); R.B. v. State, 429 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA1983).
Since the officer had no grounds to stop appellant, appellant cannot be resisting the officer by running away. We therefore reverse the conviction and sentence for resisting arrest without violence.
ANSTEAD, WARNER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Slydell v. State, 792 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ases interpreting our state statute, not in Wardloiv. We ourselves have held that “suspicious or furtive movements are not reasonable grounds to justify a stop and detention, even when combined with flight in a high crime area.” Breedlove v. State, 605 So. 2d 589, 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In Breedlove the facts showed that the officer spied defendant across a vacant field, who then [*676] made a furtive gesture and fled from the officer. We held that “[s]ince the officer had no grounds to stop appellant, app…
-
Harris v. State, 647 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…late in particular and objective terms his reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Id. at 365. In the absence of such testimony it is highly questionable whether the first prong of the F.E.C. test has been satisfied. See also Breedlove v. State, 605 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (reversing conviction for resisting an officer without violence because the officer lacked an articulable suspicion of illegal activity when he attempted to stop appellant based solely upon a furtive or suspicious movement made w…
-
Mosley v. State, 739 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…a legal duty is satisfied. The defendant is correct that “[flight, standing alone, does not constitute obstructing an officer nor does it give rise to a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity.” S.G.K, 657 So. 2d at 1248; see Breedlove v. State, 605 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); F.E.C. v. State, 559 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). “An individual may be guilty of unlawfully obstructing an officer if he flees while knowing of the officer’s intent to detain him and the officer is justified in making a…
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
- In re D.M., 543 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Nelson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- In the Interest of R.B. v. State, 429 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Yates v. State, 429 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)