Mere presence at a crime scene and subsequent flight from police are insufficient to establish guilt or support a charge of resisting arrest without violence.
A juvenile is charged with automobile theft, burglary of a conveyance, criminal mischief, and resisting arrest without violence after being observed at the scene of a crime and fleeing from police. The court considers whether the evidence is sufficient to support the delinquency adjudications. The court holds that a suspect's mere presence at the scene of a crime and subsequent flight are insufficient to establish guilt. Additionally, because the officers lacked founded suspicion to detain the juvenile, his failure to stop upon command does not constitute resisting arrest without violence. The trial court's findings on all counts are reversed.
At page 578 Mere presence and flight insufficient for delinquency finding2 citing cases“a suspect's mere presence at the scene of a crime and flight therefrom is insufficient. ...”
- OB v. State, 36 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).published Even “a suspect’s mere presence at the scene of a crime and flight therefrom is insufficient. ...” F.B. v. State, 605 So.2d 578, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (citing M.F. v. State, 549 So.2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)).
At page 579 Ignoring officer commands when no basis for detention1 citing caseof guilt as to auto theft, burglary of a conveyance, and criminal mischief is reversed. The trial court also found F.B. guilty of resisting arrest without…
- T.I.J. v. State of Florida, 399 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).published"Where an officer has no basis to detain an individual, the individual's action in ignoring an officer's command to stop cannot constitute resisting arrest.” F.B. v. State, 605 So. 2d 578, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Julie M. Levitt, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
On the basis of evidence which showed only that F.B. was present at the scene of an automobile theft, and that he fled when approached by the police, the trial court found F.B. guilty of car theft, burglary of a conveyance, criminal mischief and resisting arrest without violence. We have previously held that a suspect's mere presence at the scene of a crime and flight therefrom is insufficient evidence to support an adjudication of delinquency. M.F. v. State, 549 So.2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, the trial court's finding[*579] of guilt as to auto theft, burglary of a conveyance, and criminal mischief is reversed.
The trial court also found F.B. guilty of resisting arrest without violence for fleeing when ordered by the officers to stop. On the facts known to the officers in this case, however, there was no basis for detaining the juvenile as there was no founded suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. Where an officer has no basis to detain an individual, the individual's action in ignoring an officer's command to stop cannot constitute resisting arrest. Lee v. State, 368 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1979).
The court's verdict on the charge for resisting arrest without violence is therefore reversed.