P.R. v. State, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16170

Police received an anonymous tip that two juveniles were attempting to open back patio doors in a residential area, described as a Latin male in a red shirt and blue jeans and a white male in a black shirt and black pants.
An officer located appellant, who matched the Latin male description, emerging from bushes onto a sidewalk; he did not display obvious criminal activity at first.
Appellant walked toward the bushes after seeing the police, then complied when directed to speak with the officer, identifying himself and aiding in locating another juvenile.
The officer arrested appellant for loitering and prowling, and cannabis was discovered during a search incident to arrest.
Appellant moved to suppress the cannabis evidence, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion to stop and lack of probable cause to arrest for loitering and prowling; the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, the court held there was no probable cause to arrest for loitering and prowling, rendering the search illegal and the suppress motion should have been granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there probable cause to arrest for loitering and prowling?	Appellant (Taylor) contends tip-based, unwarranted stop and lack of observed crime negate probable cause.	State argues observations after approach plus suspicious activity justify loitering/prowling.	No probable cause; unlawful arrest and suppressible fruits.
Did the anonymous tip alone support loitering/prowling without independent corroboration?	Tip cannot support loitering/prowling absence independent corroboration.	Tip and observed conduct could sustain the charge.	Tip alone insufficient; requires officer’s own observations.
Did appellant’s initial movement toward the bushes or onto the sidewalk constitute incipient criminal behavior?	Appellant’s actions suggested evasion and potential crime.	Actions were vague; no imminent breach of peace indicated.	Insufficient to satisfy the first element of loitering and prowling.
Did appellant flight or concealment occur in a manner that would support alarm or immediate concern?	Appellant’s initial direction toward bushes could signal flight.	Appellant complied, identified himself, and aided in locating the other juvenile.	No flight or concealment; no immediate public safety alarm.

Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (mixed standard: factual findings deferential to trial court; law de novo)
Simms v. State, 51 So.3d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (anonymous tips cannot alone support loitering/prowling arrest)
Springfield v. State, 481 So.2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (loitering/prowling must be observed by the officer; not a catch-all)
E.C. v. State, 724 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (offense completed prior to police action; flight after presence known insufficient)
Mills v. State, 58 So.3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (mere act of stepping out, without crime, not enough for probable cause)
Lee v. State, 868 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (dispersing or walking away quickly not flight)
Rucker v. State, 921 So.2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (unsatisfactory answers do not dispel lack of alarm; no imminent threat)
Lucien v. State, 557 So.2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (offense requires officer’s personal observations; presence of defendant must be observed)