G.G. v. State
903 So. 2d 1031, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9213 (2005)
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 not only that the defendant engaged in suspicious behavior, but also that this behavior created an imminent threat to public safety which the defendant failed to dispel when given the opportunity.
Facts:
- At approximately 3:45 AM, a deputy observed the defendant and another juvenile emerge from behind a closed shopping plaza.
- Upon seeing the deputy's patrol unit, the two juveniles ran back behind the plaza.
- The deputy pursued and reached them within ten to fifteen seconds, at which point they stopped running.
- The defendant's companion was carrying an object later identified as a piece of brick.
- The juveniles told the deputy they were looking for their dog.
- The defendant initially gave the deputy a fictitious name.
- After being read his Miranda rights, the defendant provided his correct name, date of birth, and address, but maintained he was looking for his dog.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a petition for delinquency against the defendant in the trial court, alleging loitering and prowling.
- During the adjudicatory hearing, after the State presented its evidence, the defendant moved for a judgment of dismissal.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion.
- The trial court found the defendant guilty.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the finding of guilt and disposition to the intermediate appellate court.
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 brief flight from police and initial provision of a false name constitute sufficient evidence of an imminent threat to public safety to sustain a loitering and prowling conviction, when the juvenile subsequently stops and provides correct identifying information?
Opinions:
Majority - May, J.
No. A defendant's conduct, while initially alarming, is insufficient to support a loitering and prowling conviction if the defendant subsequently dispels the officer's alarm by providing identification and an explanation. The crime requires two elements: 1) loitering in a manner not usual for law-abiding citizens, and 2) circumstances that warrant a reasonable finding that a breach of the peace is imminent or public safety is threatened. While the defendant's presence behind a closed plaza at 3:45 AM satisfied the first element, and his flight and initial lie created alarm, the state failed to prove the second element. The loitering statute requires an officer to provide the person an opportunity to dispel the alarm. By stopping his flight and providing his correct identity, the defendant dispelled the initial alarm, and the deputy could not articulate any further facts demonstrating an imminent threat to public safety.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the Florida loitering and prowling statute, particularly the requirement that a suspect be given an opportunity to dispel an officer's alarm. It establishes that subsequent cooperation, such as providing one's true identity, can negate the element of an 'imminent threat,' even if the initial behavior was suspicious. This precedent serves to prevent the statute from being used as a catch-all for any ambiguous or suspicious activity, requiring the state to prove a concrete, undispelled threat rather than relying solely on an officer's lingering suspicion.
