Mills v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5950
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mills was stopped in the East Gateway area of downtown Clearwater at about 12:30 a.m. after approaching a closed business complex and walking behind it; he gave a false name as David Mills and was searched, revealing oxycodone and hydromorphone; officers arrested him for loitering and prowling; he stated the pills were for his blood pressure and heart, and he claimed to live at a nearby motel; it later emerged his true name was Greyson Mills and there were no 911 reports of crime in the area at the time of the stop; the trial court denied a motion to suppress dispositive evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest for loitering and prowling | Mills | State | No probable cause; suppression required |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. State, 51 So.3d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (trial findings upheld if supported; de novo law review)
- Caldwell v. State, 41 So.3d 188 (Fla.2010) (probable cause required for arrest; two elements of loitering and prowling)
- Ferguson v. State, 39 So.3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (two elements must be present; conduct not ordinary)
- J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (elements must occur in officer's presence; not relying on later explanations)
- Hollingsworth v. State, 991 So.2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (defendant's response cannot retroactively create imminent suspicion)