W.D. v. State
132 So. 3d 871
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Deputy observed W.D. and another boy on a vacant house patio undergoing renovation; no wrongdoing observed at that moment.
- Dispatcher had reported children behind the house, raising deputy concern for burglary or truancy.
- The boys fled when approached; deputy detained, searched, handcuffed, and placed them in the patrol car.
- Deputy found no burglary signs; arrest occurred solely from suspicion of crime being committed.
- W.D. explained soda shop visit and school suspension; trial court denied suppression of identity and evidence.
- On appeal, court reverses suppression denial and remands to vacate dispositions in the loitering and prowling case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputy lacked basis to arrest for loitering and prowling | W.D. contends no basis to arrest for loitering and prowling. | State asserts police had enough totality of circumstances to justify detention. | Yes; arrest lacked loitering and prowling basis; suppression error. |
| Whether loitering and prowling elements were satisfied | W.D. argues elements not proven, notably no imminent breach or imminent crime. | State relies on flight, evasion, and circumstances suggesting possible crime. | Elements not satisfied; flight alone insufficient and no imminent danger shown. |
| Whether the charge was a valid arrest under the statute | Loitering and prowling not proven; statute misapplied as catchall. | Statute may apply if conduct meets two elements. | Charge improperly used; statute requires stronger basis. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying suppression | Totality of circumstances did not support stop or arrest. | Totality supported some further investigation, not necessarily arrest. | Trial court erred; suppression should have been granted. |
| Remedy on appeal | Vacate dispositions accordingly. | Dispositions vacated; remanded for disposition vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. State, 51 So.3d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (loitering and prowling requires careful application; not a catchall)
- P.R. v. State, 97 So.3d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (special care in loitering and prowling analysis; imminent threat standard)
- S.K.W. v. State, 112 So.3d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (elements and cautions in loitering and prowling charge)
- Mills v. State, 58 So.3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (insufficient basis when only vaguely suspicious presence)
- Ferguson v. State, 39 So.3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (lack of probable cause for loitering and prowling)