127 So. 3d 650
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant (juvenile) was charged with attempted robbery and resisting an officer without violence after fleeing when officers approached at a public park.
- Officers were in the park "investigating a possible crime;" Officer Medeiros (in uniform) drove into the lot, ordered appellant to stop, and chased him for ~20 yards; appellant surrendered after entering an enclosed area.
- The state conceded insufficient evidence on attempted robbery; that count was dismissed at trial.
- At trial the prosecutor prevented officers from testifying about out-of-court statements describing the "possible crime," leaving only that officers were investigating a vague "possible crime."
- Defense moved for judgment of dismissal on the resisting charge for lack of lawful basis to detain; trial court denied and convicted the juvenile (withhold adjudication and probation).
- On appeal, the court reversed the resisting conviction, holding the state failed to prove the officers had reasonable suspicion or were engaged in a lawful execution of legal duties when appellant fled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers were engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty when they detained appellant | State: officers were lawfully conducting a criminal investigation, so detention was lawful | Appellant: mere investigation alone is not one of the specific duties that support resisting charge; state failed to show lawful basis | Reversed — state failed to prove lawful execution of duty because no evidence of reasonable suspicion or nature of the complaint |
| Whether headlong flight warranted reasonable suspicion absent other facts | State: flight from police at scene of alleged crime creates reasonable suspicion (invoking Wardlow) | Appellant: flight alone insufficient without evidence of high-crime area or other corroborating factors | Held — flight alone insufficient; no evidence of high-crime area or additional factors to supply reasonable suspicion |
| Whether out-of-court statements describing the suspected crime could be used to establish reasonable suspicion | State implicitly relied on those statements to justify investigatory stop | Trial prosecutor barred their disclosure at trial; state did not introduce BOLO/complaint content | Held — absence of those statements left the state without proof of suspicion; such statements would have been admissible for non-hearsay purpose if offered |
| Whether mere presence of officers on the job suffices for resisting without violence | State argued officers being on duty and investigating sufficed | Appellant argued distinction between being "on the job" and "lawful execution of a duty" | Held — clear distinction; being merely on the job is insufficient without founded suspicion or probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (FL 1993) (investigatory stop requires articulable reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (headlong flight in a high-crime area can supply reasonable suspicion)
- C.E.L. v. State, 24 So.3d 1181 (Fla. 2009) (continued flight in a high-crime area while defying police order can support resisting without violence)
- Francis v. State, 736 So.2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (officer investigating a 911 call is engaged in lawful execution of duty)
- Slydell v. State, 792 So.2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (if person was free to walk away, actions cannot constitute obstruction)
- O.B. v. State, 36 So.3d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (lawful execution element satisfied only with founded suspicion or probable cause)
- Davis v. State, 973 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (without info about the complaint officers investigated, cannot determine lawful execution of duty)