J.S., a Child v. State
147 So. 3d 608
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant, a child, contends the circuit court erred in denying dismissal on the loitering and prowling charge.
- State charged loitering and prowling; trial court denied motion for judgment of dismissal and later renewed motion.
- Officers investigated a 4:00 a.m. burglary report in a residential area and encountered Appellant, described as a black male in a red shirt, in the area.
- Appellant fled when the officer approached; he was later found hiding behind an AC unit and was arrested.
- Appellant claimed he was merely walking home from his girlfriend’s house; the State argued incipient criminal behavior was present.
- The appellate court reviews de novo the denial of a motion for judgment of dismissal and reverses if the State fails to prove a prima facie case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was element one (incipient criminal behavior) proven? | State asserts unusual conduct in the BOLO area showed incipient crime. | Appellant’s morning walk in red shirt is ordinary and not incipient behavior. | No; element one not proven; reversal of loitering and prowling conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.F. v. State, 110 So.3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (incipient behavior requires more than vague suspicion)
- E.C. v. State, 724 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (first element requires incipient criminal activity)
- P.R. v. State, 97 So.3d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (proof must show imminent breach of the peace)
- V.E. v. State, 539 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (test requires threat of immediate, future crime)
- A.W. v. State, 82 So.3d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (suspicious conduct alone may be insufficient)