B.J. v. State
2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3720, 951 So. 2d 100 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling, the state must prove that the defendant (1) loitered in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, and (2) did so under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm for the safety of persons or property. Hiding in a truck bed at 1:30 a.m. near a recently burglarized business satisfies these elements.
Facts:
- At approximately 1:30 a.m., Officer Terry Wujcik responded to a burglary call at a closed business in a commercial area.
- In the parking lot, the officer observed a car with its doors ajar and two females hiding inside.
- The females told another officer that other people with them had run and jumped over a fence.
- Officer Wujcik discovered a new five-foot-high, three-foot-wide hole in the fence surrounding the business.
- The warehouse doors had been pried open, a padlock was ripped off and on the ground, and electrical panels were tampered with. A used latex glove was found nearby.
- A K-9 unit's dog alerted to a Ford F-150 truck, where officers discovered four individuals, including B.J., hiding in the truck bed.
- Unused latex gloves were also found inside the truck.
- When given an opportunity by Officer Wujcik to explain his presence, B.J. remained silent.
- The warehouse owner, Isaac Chocron, arrived and confirmed that his business had been broken into, damaged, and items had been stolen since he had last closed.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida initiated juvenile delinquency proceedings against B.J., charging him with loitering and prowling.
- An adjudicatory hearing was conducted in the trial court.
- At the conclusion of the state's evidence, B.J. moved for a judgment of dismissal, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient.
- The trial court denied the motion and subsequently adjudicated B.J. delinquent on the charge.
- B.J. (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of his motion and the resulting adjudication to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a juvenile's presence, hiding in the bed of a pickup truck at 1:30 a.m. in the parking lot of a closed and recently burglarized business, constitute sufficient evidence to support an adjudication of delinquency for loitering and prowling under Florida law?
Opinions:
Majority - Gross, J.
Yes, a juvenile hiding in a truck bed at 1:30 a.m. near a recently burglarized business provides sufficient evidence to support an adjudication for loitering and prowling. The court analyzed the two elements of the loitering and prowling statute, section 856.021, Florida Statutes. The first element, that the defendant loitered 'in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals,' was met because B.J. was hiding at 1:30 a.m. in a truck near a closed business that was the subject of a burglary call. The court characterized this as 'aberrant and suspicious criminal conduct which comes close to, but falls short of, actual commission or attempted commission of a substantive crime.' The second element, requiring circumstances that warrant 'justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property,' was also met. The totality of the circumstances—the time of night, the evidence of a recent burglary, and B.J. hiding from police—suggested that law enforcement had interrupted a crime in progress. This created a reasonable concern for public safety, as B.J.'s presence suggested participation in the crime, assistance in an escape, or disposal of stolen property.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Florida's loitering and prowling statute, demonstrating that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to satisfy both elements of the offense. The ruling reinforces that a person's mere presence combined with suspicious behavior, such as hiding near a recent crime scene at an unusual hour, can constitute 'incipient criminal behavior' and a threat to public safety. This precedent provides a clear framework for prosecutors in similar cases, affirming that they do not need direct evidence linking the suspect to the underlying crime to secure a loitering and prowling conviction. The case underscores that when reviewing a motion for dismissal, courts must view all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the state.
