D.M. v. State, 681 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
D.M. v. State, 681 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Flight alone does not create a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity nor does it constitute obstructing an officer without violence.

A juvenile appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss a petition alleging he committed the delinquent act of obstructing an officer without violence. The stipulated facts state that police observed a vehicle fail to stop at a red light, initiated a traffic stop, and pursued the occupants after they fled from the moving vehicle. The central question is whether the state proved the elements of the offense. The court applies the rule that the state must establish the defendant fled with knowledge of the officer's intent to detain and that the officer was justified in making the detention due to a founded suspicion of criminal activity. The court holds that flight alone does not create well-founded suspicion or constitute obstruction. Because the record lacks facts showing the officers suspected the juvenile of criminal activity, the court reverses and remands with directions to grant the motion to dismiss.

50 citation events (47 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: EAB v. State, 964 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 798 Establishing elements of obstructing an officer without violence4 citing cases“flight alone does not give rise to a well-founded suspicion nor does it constitute obstructing an officer.”2 citing courts quote it
  • J.R.P. v. State, 942 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).published 4 cites
    D.M. v. State, 681 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing F.E.C. v. State, 559 So.2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)); see also V.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
  • EAB v. State, 851 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).published 4 cites
    D.M. v. State, 681 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); F.E.C. v. State, 559 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
  • Slydell v. State, 792 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).published
    (flight alone does not give rise to well-founded suspicion on part of police officer that defendant was engaged in criminal activity, so as to justify detention; nor does it constitute obstructing officer)
  • CEL v. State, 995 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).published
passenger of stopped car who fled from police not guilty of obstruction without violenceno pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • M.M.H. v. State, 929 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).published 2 cites
    (passenger of stopped car who fled from police not guilty of obstruction without violence)
  • C.E.L. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 2009).published 2 cites
    (holding that passenger of stopped car who fled from police was not guilty of obstruction without violence)
At page 797 681 So.2d 797 (1996) D.M., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 95-02755. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. October 4,…1 citing caseopening of page *797 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • EAB v. State, 964 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).published 2 cites
    Id. at 797 (emphasis supplied); see also Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1273 (Fla.2006) (construing identical element in obstruction with violence statute and explaining that an investigatory detention “constituted lawful execution of a…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
D.M., a child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
95-02755.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct 4, 1996.
Published opinion
681 So. 2d 797
1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10351
Parker.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

[*798] James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tracy L. Martinell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PARKER, Judge.

D.M. appeals the order of disposition and sentence imposed following his no contest plea to committing a delinquent act, specifically arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the petition alleging that he committed the delinquent act of obstructing an officer without violence. We reverse.

At the hearing on D.M.'s motion to dismiss, the state and defense counsel stipulated to the facts contained in D.M.'s motion to dismiss. No other facts were presented at the hearing. The motion to dismiss contained the following facts:

1. At 9:00 p.m., two officers of the Sarasota Police Department observed a vehicle fail to stop at a red light. The car almost struck the police vehicle.
2. The officers initiated a traffic stop within one block.
3. The vehicle did not stop.
4. Shortly thereafter, the occupants fled from the vehicle while it was still moving, at which time the car went into a ditch. D.M. was one of the fleeing passengers.
5. The officers began a foot pursuit of the vehicle's occupants, apprehending the driver and one passenger.

Following the hearing, the trial judge denied D.M.'s motion to dismiss. D.M. entered a no contest plea reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.

In order to prove that a defendant is guilty of unlawfully obstructing an officer without violence, the state must establish that the defendant fled with knowledge of the officer's intent to detain him and the officer was justified in making the detention due to his founded suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. F.E.C. v. State, 559 So.2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). See also S.G.K. v. State, 657 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Here, there were no facts that the officers suspected that D.M. was involved in criminal activity. Further, flight alone does not give rise to a well-founded suspicion nor does it constitute obstructing an officer. F.E.C., 559 So.2d at 414.

We reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to enter an order granting D.M.'s motion to dismiss.

FRANK, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.