WILLIE PERRY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court's recent decision in Tillman v. State, which clarified that section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), prohibiting force to resist arrest applies only to arrest scenarios and does not extend to illegal stops, searches, or detentions.
The Court held that section 776.051(1) does not extend beyond arrest scenarios and does not apply to illegal stops, searches, and detentions. The Court declined to decide whether an arrest under the statute encompasses post-arrest intake procedures such as strip searches, leaving that issue for the Fourth District to address on remand.
[1] Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, prohibiting the use of force to resist an arrest, does not extend beyond arrest scenarios.
[2] In prosecutions for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence for crimes committed outside arrest scenarios, the State must prove that t…
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“section 776.051(1) 'does not extend beyond arrest scenarios,'”
The Court's core holding interpreting the scope of the statute to apply only in arrest contexts, not to illegal stops, searches, or detentions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Perry resisted a post-arrest strip search and was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence. The…
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 Use Of Force To Resist Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, J.
We review Perry v. State, 846 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal followed Tillman v. State, 807 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1263 (Fla.2006), which was pending review in our Court, and cited as contrary authority Taylor v. State, 740 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981). The issue is whether section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which prohibits the use of force to resist an arrest, applies apart from arrest scenarios.
After receiving the merits briefs in this case, we stayed the proceedings pending our decision in Tillman v. State, 934 So. 2d 1263 (Fla.2006). There we approved the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Taylor that section 776.051(1) “does not extend beyond arrest scenarios,” and quashed the Fifth District’s decision in Tillman to the contrary. Id. at 1274. We also held that in prosecutions for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence for crimes committed outside arrest scenarios, the State must prove that the officer was lawfully executing a legal duty. In construing this element, “courts must apply the legal standards governing the duty undertaken by the law enforcement officer at the point that an assault, battery, or act of violent resistance occurs.” Id. at 1271.
After our decision in Tillman became final, we directed the State to show cause why we should not quash the Fourth District’s decision in this case and remand for reconsideration in light of Tillman. In its response, the State asserted that Tillman does not control because an arrest within the meaning of section 776.051(1) extends to the post-arrest strip search resisted by Perry. The State urges us to discharge jurisdiction, while Perry urges us to quash and remand for reconsideration under Tillman.
We must quash the Fourth District’s decision because it is contrary to our construction of section 776.051(1) in Tillman. The Fourth District relied on the Fifth District’s decision in Tillman, which we later quashed, for the proposition that the use of force against a known police officer extends to illegal stops, searches, and detentions. See Perry, 846 So. 2d at 587. We expressly rejected this view in Tillman, and cannot permit the same erroneous interpretation of section 776.051(1) to stand here. However, we decline to decide whether an arrest under section 776.051(1) encompasses post-arrest intake procedures such as the strip search in this case. Neither the Fourth District in this case nor this Court in Tillman addressed this issue. This matter, as well as a separate jury instruction issue raised by Perry, are for the Fourth District to address in the first instance under the changed legal landscape of our decision in Tillman.
Therefore, we quash the decision in this case and remand for reconsideration in light of Tillman.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. State, 974 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…cisions applying section 776.051(1) and holding that the illegality of a detention was not a defense to charges of battery on a law enforcement officer. The supreme court’s decision in Tillman overruled Dominique and Harris. See also Perry v. State, 953 So. 2d 459 (Fla.2007) (quashing a decision of this court which had relied on these cases and section 776.051(1)). The supreme court’s decision in Tillman is controlling and applies to petitioner. See Rodriguez v. State, 964 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holdi…
-
Perry v. State, 968 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…t in Tillman addressed this issue. This matter, as well as a separate jury instruction issue raised by Perry, are for the Fourth District to address in the first instance under the changed legal landscape of our decision in Tillman. Perry v. State, 953 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla.2007). Having received supplemental briefs from the parties, we now address these [*74] issues. First, we must decide whether the strip search performed at the jail during intake booking procedures was a part of the arrest process such th…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Tillman v. State, 934 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2006)
- Clauson Conway Taylor v. State, 740 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Tillman v. State, 807 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Underwriters AT Interest AT Lloyd's a/s/o Tech Data v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 846 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Perry v. State, 846 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)