E.F. v. State
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4416, 110 So. 3d 101, 2013 WL 1136336 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a misdemeanor offense such as loitering and prowling, both elements of the crime must be committed in the arresting officer's presence prior to any police action. Evidence discovered as a result of the police stop cannot be used retroactively to justify the arrest.
Facts:
- Around 9:00 AM, a detective was patrolling a residential neighborhood known for recent burglaries.
- The detective observed E.F., a juvenile, walking slowly down a street while looking into carports and at the sides of houses.
- E.F. was carrying a large black satchel bag and had a flashlight visible in his front pants pocket.
- A local resident also observed E.F. looking at a vacant house and walking around a neighbor's house, and began to follow him on a bicycle.
- The detective initiated contact, and E.F. acknowledged that he did not live in the neighborhood.
- At the detective's request, E.F. opened his bag, which was found to contain pieces of copper piping, bolt cutters, gloves, screwdrivers, and a hammer.
- E.F. told the detective he obtained the copper piping from a nearby business.
Procedural Posture:
- The juvenile, E.F., was charged with loitering and prowling and possession of burglary tools in a Florida trial court.
- During the adjudicatory hearing, E.F. filed a motion to suppress physical evidence, which the court denied.
- The trial court granted E.F.'s motion for judgment of dismissal on the possession of burglary tools charge.
- The trial court denied E.F.'s motion for judgment of dismissal on the loitering and prowling charge.
- The trial court found E.F. guilty of loitering and prowling and adjudicated him delinquent.
- E.F. (appellant) appealed the disposition order to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for dismissal.
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 conduct of walking slowly through a residential neighborhood in the morning, looking at houses and carports while carrying a satchel and a flashlight, constitute the crime of loitering and prowling committed in an officer's presence?
Opinions:
Majority - Polen, J.
No. The juvenile's conduct observed by the detective did not constitute the crime of loitering and prowling. To establish the crime, the state must prove two elements occurred in the officer's presence: (1) the defendant loitered in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, and (2) the circumstances warranted reasonable alarm for the safety of persons or property. Here, the detective only observed E.F. walking slowly, looking at houses, and carrying a bag and flashlight at 9:00 AM. This conduct is merely 'vaguely suspicious' and does not rise to the level of 'incipient criminal behavior' required for the first element. Likewise, this conduct did not suggest a breach of the peace was imminent or that public safety was threatened, failing the second element. Crucially, the contents of the bag cannot be considered because the offense must be completed prior to any police action, and the tools were discovered only after the detective initiated the stop.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strictness of the 'in the officer's presence' rule for misdemeanor arrests in Florida, particularly for offenses like loitering and prowling which are susceptible to abuse. It clarifies that vaguely suspicious behavior is insufficient to justify a stop and that evidence found during a stop cannot be used retroactively to establish the elements of the crime. The ruling serves as a significant check on police power, preventing officers from using loitering statutes to conduct investigatory stops based on a mere hunch and then searching for incriminating evidence to justify the initial detention.
