C.H.S. v. State
2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13407, 795 So. 2d 1087 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for loitering and prowling requires the state to prove not only that a person was in a particular place at an unusual time but also that their conduct posed an imminent threat to public safety or property, which cannot be established solely by presence in a high-crime area or a furtive movement that does not suggest an impending crime against persons or property.
Facts:
- Around 2:30 a.m., an officer was patrolling an area that had recently experienced a series of smash-and-grab burglaries.
- The officer encountered C.H.S. and another juvenile in a secluded but well-lit area behind a closed Walgreen's store.
- Upon seeing the officer, C.H.S. immediately placed an object he was holding into a nearby garbage can.
- The other juvenile moved both of his hands behind his back toward his waistband.
- The officer subsequently discovered a small bag of cannabis in the garbage can where he had seen C.H.S. place the item.
- When the officer asked C.H.S. to explain his presence, C.H.S. stated he was 'just hanging out' or 'chillin'.
Procedural Posture:
- C.H.S. was charged with possession of marijuana and loitering and prowling in a Florida trial court (juvenile division).
- The trial court adjudicated C.H.S. delinquent on both counts.
- C.H.S. (appellant) appealed the adjudication of delinquency to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal (appellee is the State).
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 an individual's presence late at night behind a closed business in a high-crime area, combined with the act of concealing an object upon seeing a police officer, constitute the offense of loitering and prowling under Florida law?
Opinions:
Majority - Fulmer, J.
No. The individual's conduct did not constitute loitering and prowling because the circumstances, while suspicious, did not demonstrate an imminent threat to persons or property as required by the statute. The court affirmed the possession conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence was inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. However, it reversed the loitering and prowling conviction. The court reasoned that the offense has two elements: (1) loitering in a manner unusual for law-abiding citizens, and (2) circumstances that warrant justifiable alarm for the safety of persons or property. While C.H.S.'s presence behind a closed business at 2:30 a.m. satisfied the first element, the second, and more crucial, element was not met. The officer's articulated fears—the late hour, the high-crime area, and the 'common practice for burglars'—were insufficient to prove an imminent breach of the peace or threat to public safety. The furtive act of concealing an object, while justifying the officer's initial alarm for his own safety, did not indicate an imminent threat to property in the vicinity. The discovered crime, possession of marijuana, did not itself pose a threat to persons or property in the area as required by the loitering statute.
Concurring - Altenbernd, J.
No. The judge fully concurred with the majority's legal conclusion based on the restrictive case law governing the offense of loitering and prowling. However, he wrote separately to express his opinion that police should have the authority to intervene when juveniles are found in such circumstances (e.g., two sixteen-year-olds out at 2:30 a.m. on a school night). He suggested that, without necessarily making an arrest for a crime, officers should be able to transport such children home or to a safe shelter for their own well-being.
Analysis:
This case refines the requirements for a loitering and prowling conviction in Florida by emphasizing the necessity of an 'imminent' threat to public safety. It clarifies that generalized suspicion, presence in a high-crime area, and furtive movements unrelated to an impending property crime are insufficient to satisfy the statute's second element. The decision serves to prevent the loitering and prowling statute from being used as a broad tool to arrest individuals based on suspicion alone, thereby protecting individuals from convictions for being in the 'wrong place at the wrong time.' Future prosecutions for this offense will require specific, articulable facts demonstrating that the defendant's behavior was on the verge of breaching the peace or threatening persons or property.
