A.V., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 affirmed the juvenile's conviction, holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and question passengers in a vehicle suspected of being stolen, and that the juvenile's flight supported a resisting charge.
Officers with reasonable suspicion that a vehicle is stolen may stop and question all occupants of that vehicle, and a defendant's flight with knowledge of the officer's intent to detain constitutes support for a resisting charge.
[1] Reasonable suspicion that a vehicle is stolen provides a basis for officers to stop and question all occupants of that vehicle based on their assumed personal or business…
[2] Flight from an officer with knowledge of the officer's intent to detain may support a charge of resisting arrest or detention.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Occupants of a car differ from, for example, customers in a store or passengers on a public bus. Occupants of a private vehicle are traveling together by choice and thus may be assumed to have some personal or business association with one another.”
Explaining why reasonable suspicion regarding a vehicle extends to all occupants.
A juvenile was a passenger in a vehicle that officers suspected was stolen. The juvenile fled when officers attempted to detain him.…
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 Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. See Prestley v. State, 896 So.2d 862, 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Occupants of a car differ from, for example, customers in a store or passengers on a public bus. Occupants of a private vehicle are traveling together by choice and thus may be assumed to have some personal or business association with one another. Knowledge or suspicion that one of the occupants has been involved in criminal activity occurring within the car, or involving the car itself, serves as a basis for a reasonable suspicion that the other occupants may be participants in that activity. Therefore, we conclude that since the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the car was stolen, they had a basis for stopping and questioning the passengers in the vehicle, including the Juvenile.”) (quoting People v. H.J., 931 P.2d 1177, 1182 (Colo.1997) (internal citation omitted)). See also O.B. v. State, 36 So.3d 784, 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Flight can support a resisting charge if the state proves that (1) the officer had an articulable well-founded suspicion of criminal activity that justifies the officer’s detention of the defendant, and (2) the defendant fled with knowledge that the officer intended to detain him or her.”) (quoting V.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1140, 1142-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.G. v. State, 118 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…in a BOLO initiated by the victim as seven males involved in a robbery. Because there was obviously no founded or reasonable suspicion to justify stopping [*270] and detaining a person of a different gender than those described, see A.V. v. State, 81 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the confinement was unlawful, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and, as such, irremediably tainted the purported consent even if ar-guendo it actually took place. See Hill v. State, 39 So. 3d 43…
Authorities Cited
- V.L. v. State, 790 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- O.B. v. State, 36 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Prestley v. State, 896 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)