F.P., A CHILD, 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.
Section 843.02, Florida Statutes, does not require cooperation by answering questions, only prohibits resisting, obstructing, or opposing an officer.
An officer approached appellant investigating a fight, but had no reason to believe she was engaged in criminal conduct. Appellant yelled, walked away…
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 Resisting An Officer Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
The issue in this case is whether section 843.02, Florida Statutes, which requires that one not “resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer ... in the lawful execution of any legal duty” also requires one to cooperate with the officer by answering questions. It appears that the law of this state is that it does not.
The officer arrived at the scene to investigate a reported fight which had ended. Appellant was found at the scene yelling and waiving her arms. The officer approached her and she walked away. He ordered her to stop and she responded with a vulgarity. He arrested her for resisting without violence.
The officer admitted that he had no reason to believe that appellant was or had been engaged in criminal conduct. This was not a Terry stop. It seems clear that one can walk away from a citizen encounter. See R.S. v. State, 531 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); H.H. v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); S.G.K. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The trial court’s observation that “from his testimony I find that he [the officer] felt that the Defendant could be stirring up the crowd” is contrary to the officer’s sworn testimony that he had no reasonable suspicion that appellant had committed a crime. A judgment of acquittal should have been entered.
REVERSED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)…dings, see Peters v. State, 984 So. 2d 1227, 1234 (Fla.2008). Florida courts have also held that the State has the right to call the defendant as a witness to testify about noncriminal matters in probation revocation proceedings. See Perry v. State, 778 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). To revoke probation, a court must only conclude and determine that a substantial violation of the terms of probation occurred. See Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Requiring the probationer to esta…
-
Valentine Sears v. State, 889 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…for the violation of probation, even though Mr. Sears had still not been sworn in, had not been called to the stand, and was not advised regarding his right [*959] against self incrimination with respect to this separate offense. See Perry v. State, 778 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). At the conclusion of this last series of questions, the trial court abruptly found Mr. Sears guilty of violating his probation, and sentenced him to prison. This appeal followed. Every criminal defendant is entitled to court pr…
-
E.P. v. State, 901 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…is or her agreement to accept the terms of probation effectively waives a Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to this information. , That privilege is applicable to conduct and circumstances concerning a separate criminal offense. Perry v. State, 778 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984) State v. Heath, 343 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1977); Cassamassima v. State, 657 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Dearing v. State, 388 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S.G.K. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- In the Interest of R.S. v. State, 531 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)