K.S., 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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for disorderly conduct after using profanity and expressing frustration during a police investigation at a swimming pool. The court reversed, holding that crude verbal protests alone, without words directly urging a crowd to respond or actually inciting a breach of the peace, do not constitute disorderly conduct.
K.S.'s adjudication for disorderly conduct is reversed because his profane words, which were not directed at the crowd and did not urge onlookers to respond or incite an immediate breach of the peace, do not constitute disorderly conduct.
[1] A verbal protest of police conduct, even if loud and obscene, does not constitute disorderly conduct if it does not incite an immediate breach of the peace or inflict inj…
[2] Mere coarse expressions of frustration at an accusation, not directed at a crowd, do not rise to the level of inciting a breach of the peace.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“They clearly did not 'by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.'”
Establishes the legal standard for disorderly conduct: speech must inherently inflict injury or tend to incite immediate breach of peace
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer was investigating a purse-snatching at an apartment complex swimming pool where ten to fifteen people, including K.S. and his friends…
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 Incitement To Riot cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
This is yet another case where an individual’s loud, obscene, verbal protests of police conduct result in a conviction, or adjudication of delinquency, for disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest without violence. We reverse. The testimony below established that a police officer was investigating a purse-snatching in the swimming pool area of an apartment complex. Between ten and fifteen people, including K.S. and his friends, were at the pool when the robbery occurred. Responding to what he obviously felt was an unjustified accusation by the officer, K.S. said “fuck this_ I didn’t do anything-This is bullshit.”
At that point, the people at the pool gathered in the vicinity of the officer’s car. Some, including K.S.’s cousin, were telling the officer that K.S. “didn’t do anything” and that he should “let him go.” K.S. again said “fuck this” and began to walk away from the officer. The officer then decided to arrest K.S. for disorderly conduct, grabbed him by the belt, and placed him in his police ear. This case is factually similar to, and legally indistinguishable from, L.A.T. v. State, 650 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). There, the juvenile specifically “called upon passers-by to witness and protest the arrest of his friend....” He did so by screaming, “is everybody watching this ... police brutality ... Rodney King style.” The officers testified that twenty to twenty-five people had gathered around while L.A.T. was screaming.
On appeal this court reversed L.A.T.’s adjudication of delinquency for disorderly conduct.
The record shows that while a number of persons gathered at the scene and observed the goings on, L.A.T.’s words neither themselves urged the crowd to respond nor actually had that effect. Specifically, they did not “disturb” or cause anybody to interfere with the arrest or otherwise to breach the peace.3
Id. at 217-18 & n. 3.
K.S.’s words in this case are even less egregious than L.A.T.’s in the sense that they were not directed at the crowd but were instead a coarse expression of frustration at what K.S. perceived was an unjust accusation. They clearly did not “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641, 643 (Fla.1976)(in-temal quotations and citations omitted); see also Miller v. State, 667 So. 2d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); D.G. v. State, 661 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); C.P. v. State, 644 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Compare C.L.B. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(distinguishing L.A.T. and affirming adjudication where nonverbal acts combined with speech).
Consequently, we reverse the orders finding K.S. guilty of disorderly conduct and imposing sanctions.
. The state relies upon the police testimony that L.A.T. was "creating a scene that was gathered around the officer” and that "the scene was getting uncontrollable.” There was no evidence, however, either that anyone in the crowd was “incited" by his words or that he himself took any non-verbal "action” at all.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barry v. State, 934 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…See, e.g., Gonzales v. City of Belle Glade, 287 So. 2d 669, 670 (Fla.1973) (reversing disorderly conduct conviction because there was no evidence that the defendant’s words were anything other than an annoyance to those around them); K.S. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (reversing adjudication for disorderly conduct even though a crowd gathered to watch the goings-on because the crowd did not respond to KS.’s words or attempt to otherwise breach the peace); B.R. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1184, 1…
-
C.W. v. State, 76 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…uction.” D.G., 661 So. 2d at 76. The fact that the incident may have attracted the attention of onlookers, without more, is insufficient to support a charge of disorderly conduct. See Fields v. State, 24 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); K.S. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The record facts in C.W.’s case do not support a finding of disorderly conduct or obstruction of a legal duty. “If an arrest is not lawful, then a defendant cannot be guilty of resisting it ... the common law rule still remains…
-
J.G.D. v. State, 724 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…he building. The record fails to show that the police order [*712] was, in these circumstances, justified by any cognizable wrongdoing on the part of the juvenile, either by his words, H.K. v. State, 711 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); K.S. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); L.A.T. v. State, 650 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); S.D. v. State, 627 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), or, as shown by the fact that a trespass charge was abandoned, in his presence at the scene. See § 810.09(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1…
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
- State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1976)
- D.G. v. State, 661 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- L.A.T. v. State, 650 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Miller v. State, 667 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- C.L.B. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Simpson v. Parsons, 644 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- C.P. v. State, 644 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)