JIMMY WARD, 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.
The court held that the defendant was lawfully detained when he provided a false name, making his arrest for that offense valid.
[1] A consensual encounter between a law enforcement officer and an individual does not become a detention until the individual is no longer free to leave.
[2] A lawful detention for investigation occurs when an officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on the totality of the circumstances known prior to the stop, that a person…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers observed the defendant enter an apartment complex through a fence opening. When approached, the defendant provided a false name, leadi…
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
Ward appeals his judgment and sentence for possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense,1 possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver,2 and providing a false name to a law enforcement officer.3 He entered a guilty plea to these three charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. The firearm and cocaine were found on Ward’s person after his arrest on the providing a false name offense. He contends that his arrest was illegal because he was not lawfully detained at the time he gave a false name. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm Ward’s convictions.
At approximately 2:30 a.m. on September 13, 2007, Ocala police officers Sirolli and Smith were on foot patrol in the multi-building Ocala Place Apartments complex when they observed Ward walk through a fence opening onto the complex’s common grounds. The Ocala Police Department had a written agreement with the apartment complex owner authorizing officers to patrol the property grounds and enforce trespass laws. The complex had large, “no trespassing” signs posted on multiple sides of every building. Officer Sirolli testified that the signs were at eye level, in well-lit areas, cited to Florida’s trespass statute, and referenced that Ocala Police Department officers were authorized representatives for the apartment complex owner. According to Officer Sirolli, one such sign would have been readily visible to Ward at the time he entered upon the apartment complex property.
The officers approached Ward and asked him if he was a resident of the complex. Ward responded “no” and stated that he was just “cutting through.” Officer Sirolli then asked Ward for his name for the purpose of issuing a trespass warning. Ward identified himself as “Jim-ball Covington.” However, when asked to spell the name, Ward gave at least two different spellings. After a computer check indicated that the name was “invalid,” Ward was placed under arrest for giving Officer Sirolli a false name. A search incident to arrest resulted in the discovery on Ward’s person of a pistol and 44 pieces of crack cocaine.
It is a misdemeanor for an individual who has been arrested or lawfully detained *899to falsely identify himself to a law enforcement officer. See § 901.36(1), Fla. Stat. (2007).4 In this ease, it is undisputed that Ward provided the officers with a false name prior to his arrest. Thus, the only issue is whether Ward was lawfully detained at the time he falsely identified himself.
To stop and detain a person for investigation, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla.1998). Whether an officer’s suspicion is reasonable is determined by the totality of the circumstances that existed at the time of the stop and is based solely on the facts known to the officer before the stop. Slydell v. State, 792 So.2d 667, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, a detention does not occur simply because an officer approaches an individual and initiates a conversation. Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 608 (Fla.1997). Thus, when the officers approached Ward and asked him if he lived at Ocala Place Apartments, their actions constituted a consensual encounter, not a detention. Id.
After Ward advised the officers that he was not a resident, but was “cutting through,” the consensual encounter was elevated to a detention because, as acknowledged by Officer Sirolli, Ward was no longer free to leave. This detention was lawful because the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Ward had just committed the crime of trespass. Specifically, section 810.09(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that an individual commits the offense of trespass when, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, such person willfully enters upon property, other than a structure or conveyance, as to which notice against entering has been given either by actual communication or by posting as described in section 810.011. By his own admission, Ward had no lawful reason to be on the Ocala Place Apartment’s property. Furthermore, there were numerous large, visible “no trespassing” signs throughout the apartment complex, including at the location where Ward entered onto the property.
Having been lawfully detained, Ward’s act of providing a false name to the officers constituted a violation of section 901.36(1). The fact that Officer Sirolli initially intended to exercise his discretion to give Ward a written warning, rather than effect an arrest, did not render the detention unlawful. An officer can lawfully detain an individual who the officer reasonably suspects has committed a crime regardless of whether the officer intends to make an arrest. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (subjective intentions of officers play no role in ordinary, probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis); State v. Wise, 603 So.2d 61, 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (officer had authority to temporarily detain suspect in order to investigate misdemeanor even though officer could not effect arrest because misdemeanor had occurred outside officer’s presence).
Ward additionally argues that the State failed to establish that the posted “no trespassing” signs strictly complied with the requirements of section 810.011(5).5 However, the issue is whether *900the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Ward had committed the offense of trespassing, not whether the defendant had actually committed a crime. A police officer is not required to determine conclusively that a crime has occurred prior to detaining an individual. State v. Wimberly, 988 So.2d 116, 119-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Ward’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.T. v. State, 87 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…gainst entry. See § 810.09(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). This notice may be accomplished by either “actual communication” to appellant or by “posting” the property as that term is defined by statute. See § 810.09(1)(a)1, Fla. Stat.; see also Ward v. State, 21 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). The statutory requirements for posting are very specific, requiring signs placed at specific locations, at specific heights, and in type of a certain size. See § 810.011(5), Fla. Stat.1 In the absence of this prior warning by co…1 / 2
-
K.O. v. State, 267 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…on of a legal duty). At least two of the officers testified to seeing a “No Trespassing” sign on the building, although no one testified as to the size and location of the sign. The officers suspected that K.O. was trespassing. See Ward v. State, 21 So. 3d 896, 899-900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (finding that although the fact that the “no trespassing” sign did not comply with the statute may mean that the defendant did not actually commit a crime, an officer is not required to conclusively determine that a cri…
-
Jamall Vontae Scott v. State, 112 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Ward v. State, 21 So. 3d 896, 899-900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[T]he issue is whether the officers had reasonable' suspicion to believe that [the defendant] had committed the offense of trespassing, not whether the defendant had actually committed a crime. A police officer is not…
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
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996)
- Tedd J. Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993)
- Voorhees v. State, 699 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1997)
- Slydell v. State, 792 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- State v. Wise, 603 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Javonte L. Wimberly, 988 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)