T.D., 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 held that the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty because probable cause existed for the arrest.
A juvenile, T.D., was adjudicated delinquent for resisting an officer without violence. The sole issue on appeal was whether the arresting officer was…
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 Execution Of A Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
T.D., a juvenile, appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for resisting an officer without violence, in violation of section 848.02, Florida Statutes (2010). To support a conviction for resisting an officer without violence under section 843.02, the State must prove: (1) the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty; and (2) the defendant’s actions, by his words, conduct, or a combination thereof, constitute obstruction or resistance of the lawful execution of a legal duty. M.J. v. State, 67 So.3d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
The sole issue on appeal is whether the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty when she arrested T.D. Because the record supports the existence of probable cause, the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty. See id. (“The element of lawful execution of a legal duty is satisfied if an officer has either a founded suspicion to stop the person or probable cause to make a warrant-less arrest.”).1 Accordingly, we affirm T.D.’s adjudication for resisting an officer without violence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 187 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 2015)…596. The Fourth District Court of .Appeal agreed with the reasoning of Judge Hawkes’ dissent and found that where there had been no effort to obtain a warrant before the misconduct occurred, inevitable discovery could not be found. Rowell v. State, 83 So. 3d 990, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, if the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, the evidence. will be a…1 / 2
-
Ungray Lamar Murray v. State, 155 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…discovery doctrine to apply, the State must establish that the evidence would have been discovered ‘by means of normal' investigative measures that inevitably would have been set in motion as a matter of routine police procedure.’” Rowell v. State, 83 So. 3d 990, 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857, 863 (Fla.1987)). “In other words, the case must be in such a posture that the facts already in the possession of the police would have led to this evidence notwithstanding the police…
-
Thomas v. State, 127 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…d. Id. at 593. The police were not "in the process of obtaining a warrant” when they entered the apartment Ms. Simmons and Mr. Thomas shared. The Fourth District Court of Appeal refused to apply the inevitable discovery doctrine in Rowell v. State, 83 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). There, unlike in McDonnell, police had not yet left the scene to obtain a warrant at the time invalid consent was obtained. Concluding that no evidence showed a warrant was "being actively pursued prior to the occurrence of the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- E.W. v. State, 873 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- JM Fam. Enters., Inc. v. Winter Park Imports, Inc., 67 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Braman v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 18 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- W.J. v. State, 18 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- M.J. v. State, 67 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)