MICHAEL ERCEG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
MICHAEL ERCEG, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
697 So. 2d 572
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1997)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The trial court found that the appellant had violated his probation by loitering and prowling contrary to the condition of his probation that he not violate any law. The state concedes that the record does not support a finding of guilt as to the charge of loitering and prowling, because the offense did not occur in the presence of a police officer. Freeman v. State, 617 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We therefore reverse and remand for the reinstatement of appellant’s probation.
STONE, C.J., and WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grant v. State, 854 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…(Fla.1975) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). Because loitering and prowl ing is a misdemeanor, both elements of the offense must be committed in the officer’s presence prior to arrest. See Erceg v. State, 697 So. 2d 572, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Freeman v. State, 617 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The evidence presented in this case does not show the presence of either element of the crime of loitering and prowling. While the officers witnessed three men wal…
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 617 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)