J.S.B., 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.
J.S.B. was convicted of loitering and prowling after police found him and three others near a building where a burglary was reported. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State failed to prove the required elements of the offense because the evidence showed only a vaguely suspicious presence with no conduct indicating an imminent breach of the peace or threat to public safety.
The State failed to establish a prima facie case for loitering and prowling because the evidence did not demonstrate that J.S.B.'s actions constituted an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety; mere vaguely suspicious presence is insufficient to support conviction.
[1] For a misdemeanor offense, both elements of loitering and prowling must be committed in the officer's presence prior to arrest.
[2] The offense of loitering and prowling requires proof that the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, a…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 State must prove two elements to sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling. First, the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law abiding citizens; and, second, the loitering and prowling must be under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property located in the vicinity.”
Establishes the two-element test required for loitering and prowling conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Kelley responded to a report of a burglary in progress at a welding business at approximately 8:30 a.m. and found J.S.B. and three other young …
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
PER CURIAM.
We reverse J.S.B.’s conviction for loitering and prowling. We determine that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction.
At trial the State called only one witness, Deputy William Kelley of the Manatee County Sheriffs Office. Pursuant to a report that a burglary was in progress at a welding business, he arrived at the reported address at approximately 8:30 a.m. He testified that he observed an empty vehicle in the parking lot and proceeded to check the rear of the location. Behind the building he saw a ditch, a dirt road, a pasture that might have been fenced, and four young men about 20 feet from the building. The young men were walking and did not flee when they observed Deputy Kelley. Among the four was J.S.B. After receiving Miranda1 warnings, J.S.B. properly identified himself and indicated that they had pulled the car into the parking lot because it was overheating. He further advised the deputy that the boys were looking for water and a container to fill the radiator. Because he saw a water spigot and empty soda containers in the front of the building, the deputy doubted J.S.B.’s statement. The officer, who was the only witness, presented no evidence of burglary or an attempt. The State then rested and the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied.
The State must prove two elements to sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling. First, the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law abiding citizens; and, second, the loitering and prowling must be under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property located in the vicinity. See State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1975). As to the first element the State must prove more than vaguely suspicious presence. As to the second, it must prove conduct that is alarming in nature, indicating an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety. See Von Goff v. State, 687 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Further, because the crime is a misdemeanor, the elements of the offense must occur in the officer’s presence, see K.R.R. v. State, 629 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and the elements must be completed prior to any police action, see E.B. v. State, 537 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The facts presented by the State did not demonstrate that J.S.B.’s actions constituted an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety. Therefore, the State failed to establish a prima facie case under section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1997), and the court erred in denying the juvenile’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Accordingly, we reverse the order finding J.S.B. guilty of loitering and prowling and remand with instructions that he be discharged.
PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
C.H.S. v. State, 795 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
-
Greyson Mills v. State, 58 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ed commission of a substantive crime and suggest that a breach of the peace is imminent.’ ” Id. (quoting Rucker v. State, 921 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). The first element requires more than a “vaguely suspicious presence.” J.S.B. v. State, 729 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). And a defendant’s “response to the police pursuit cannot be used retroactively to support an imminent suspicion of criminal activity.” Hollingsworth v. State, 991 So. 2d 990, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Second, “ ‘the factual…
-
B.D.K. v. State, 743 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ued that his arrest was unlawful because it was made for a misdemeanor that did not occur in the presence of the arresting officer. He also argued that there was no probable cause to arrest him for loitering and prowling. [*1157] In J.S.B. v. State, 729 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), we held: The State must prove two elements to sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling. First the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law abiding citizens; and, second, the loitering and prowl…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975)
- K.R.R. v. State, 629 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- E.B. v. State, 537 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- von Goff v. State, 687 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)