ALLEN MICHAEL GILLEN, 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.
Allen Gillen appealed his probation violation finding based on loitering and providing a false birth date to law enforcement. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Gillen was not lawfully detained because there was insufficient evidence he violated the local loitering ordinance, and lawful detention is a prerequisite to any violation of the false birth date statute.
Gillen was not lawfully detained because the evidence did not establish a violation of the Dania loitering ordinance. Since lawful detention is a prerequisite to a violation of the false birth date statute, no violation occurred and the probation violation finding must be reversed.
[1] A person cannot be found to have violated a statute prohibiting the giving of a false birth date to a law enforcement officer if the initial detention was not lawful.
[2] A loitering ordinance prohibiting loitering 'without apparent reason' and refusing to identify oneself requires reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in or plan…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Lawful detention, however, is a condition precedent to the violation of this statute, J.P. v. State, 855 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and appellant argues he was not lawfully detained.”
Establishes the legal prerequisite that lawful detention must exist before a false birth date violation can occur.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA detective observed Gillen standing in a gas station parking lot with another person who was drinking from an open container. Gillen had a closed alc…
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 Lawful Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court found that appellant violated his probation by loitering and giving a law enforcement officer a false birth date. We reverse.
A detective testified that appellant was standing in the parking lot of a gas station with another person who was drinking an alcoholic beverage from an open container. Appellant had a container of an alcoholic beverage, which he tried to hide, but there was no evidence it was open. The detective testified that he had previously warned both men not to loiter in this parking lot, and that he arrested, appellant because of the previous warning. Appellant gave the officer his correct name, but the birth date was incorrect by four years. The clerk from the gas station testified that appellant was a regular customer with whom he never had a problem, and he had never asked appellant to leave.
The trial court found that appellant had violated section 901.36, Florida Statutes (2004), by giving the officer a false date of birth. Lawful detention, however, is a condition precedent to the violation of this statute, J.P. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and appellant argues he was not lawfully detained.
The Dania loitering ordinance, section 17-12.1, prohibits loitering as follows:
(c) Prohibitions. No person shall prowl, sleep, loiter, stand, wander or congregate on the streets, sidewalks ... or other public places, or in public entrances to private establishments, within the City of Dania, Florida:
(1) So as to obstruct or impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a manner endangering public safety or threatening a breach of the peace;
(2) In a manner warranting reasonable concern for the safety or security of persons or property in the vicinity;
(3) After being reasonably requested by a police officer to disperse or move, when the failure to comply reasonably threatens public safety or convenience;
(4) Without apparent reason and refuse to identify himself or herself or account for his or her conduct when requested to do so by a police officer, under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in or planning a crime or constitutes a threat to public peace or the personal safety or property of others; provided, however, that a mere refusal to identify himself or herself or account for his or her conduct shall not be sufficient grounds for arrest.
Viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the evidence reflected that appellant was in the parking lot of a gas station after being told by an officer not to be there on a prior occasion, and that appellant attempted to hide a closed alcoholic beverage container in his pocket. There was no evidence appellant was obstructing or impeding, refused to leave, or was engaging in any other conduct which would violate the ordinance.
Because there was no evidence that appellant was loitering, it follows that appellant was not lawfully detained, and no violation of section 901.36, Florida Statutes occurred. Reversed.
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.