JSB v. State, 729 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
JSB v. State, 729 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: T.P. v. State (fladistctapp, 2017-08-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
See M.B. v. State, 107 -4- So. 3d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (reversing adjudication of delinquency where detention of juvenile "was based on an unreliable, anonymous tip that was not corroborated" and there was no evidence that the flight took place in a high-crime area); O.B., 36 So. 3d at 787 ("[P]olice officers seeking to detain an individual in response to a BOLO are not lawfully executing a legal duty unless they have the requisite reasonable suspicion."); see also Rivera v. State, 771 So. 2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that anonymous informant's tip was insufficient to establish …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
See M.B. v. State, 107 So.3d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (reversing adjudication of delinquency where detention of juvenile “was based on an unreliable, anonymous tip that was .not corroborated” and there was no evidence that the flight took place in a high-crime area); O.B., 36 So.3d at 787 (“[Pjolice officers seeking to detain an individual in response to a BOLO are not lawfully executing a legal duty unless they have the requisite reasonable suspicion.”); see also Rivera v. State, 771 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that anonymous informant’s tip was insufficient to establ…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Geoffrey Madge v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See, e.g., E.F. v. State, 110 So.3d 101, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (finding that in determining whether state proved elements of loitering and prowling, court was “limited to considering only the detective’s observations”); J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (recognizing that to sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling, the state must *90 prove two elements, which must have occurred in the officer’s presence); K.R.R. v. State, 629 So.2d 1068, 1069-70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (reversing adjudication of delinquency for loitering and prowling where officer received repo…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perez-Tejon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
The first element of this offense requires the State to demonstrate that the defendant had more than a “vaguely suspicious presence.” Mills v. State, 58 So.3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (quoting J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
The first element of the crime “has been read to require a threat of immediate, future criminal activity.” V.E. v. State, 539 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147, 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)). “[T]he State must prove more than vaguely suspicious presence.” J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mills v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
The first element requires more than a “vaguely suspicious presence.” J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JDH v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
R.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) J.D.H. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
R.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
In J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court held that to obtain a conviction for loitering and prowling the State must prove the following two elements: first, the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law-abiding citizens; and second, the factual circumstances must warrant a justifiable and reasonable concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) RM v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
In J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court held that to obtain a conviction for loitering and prowling the State must prove the following two elements: first, the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law-abiding citizens; and second, the factual circumstances must warrant a justifiable and reasonable concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
cited Cited as authority (rule) BDK v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
As to the second, it must prove conduct that is alarming in nature, indicating an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety. 729 So.2d at 457 (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) B.D.K. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
As to the second, it must prove conduct that is alarming in nature, indicating an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety. 729 So.2d at 457 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited "see" CHS v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (concluding there was insufficient evidence of loitering and prowling where officer responded to report of burglary in progress and found empty vehicle in parking lot and juvenile with three men walking around dirt pasture behind the building); K.R.R. v. State, 629 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (concluding there was insufficient evidence of loitering and prowling where juvenile was found walking on railroad tracks at 12:30 a.m., near site of reported attempted car theft).
discussed Cited "see" Rinehart v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
Finally, then, we must determine whether the facts known to the deputy supported a founded suspicion that Mr. Rinehart was loitering and prowling, a crime that occurs when a suspect loiters or prowls "in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." § 856.021, Fla. Stat. (1997); see J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
J.S.B., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
97-04328.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Mar 17, 1999.
729 So. 2d 456
Per Curiam.
Published

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse J.S.B.'s conviction for loitering and prowling. We determine that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction.

At trial the State called only one witness, Deputy William Kelley of the Manatee[*457] County Sheriff's Office. Pursuant to a report that a burglary was in progress at a welding business, he arrived at the reported address at approximately 8:30 a.m. He testified that he observed an empty vehicle in the parking lot and proceeded to check the rear of the location. Behind the building he saw a ditch, a dirt road, a pasture that might have been fenced, and four young men about 20 feet from the building. The young men were walking and did not flee when they observed Deputy Kelley. Among the four was J.S.B. After receiving Miranda[1] warnings, J.S.B. properly identified himself and indicated that they had pulled the car into the parking lot because it was overheating. He further advised the deputy that the boys were looking for water and a container to fill the radiator. Because he saw a water spigot and empty soda containers in the front of the building, the deputy doubted J.S.B.'s statement. The officer, who was the only witness, presented no evidence of burglary or an attempt. The State then rested and the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied.

The State must prove two elements to sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling. First, the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law abiding citizens; and, second, the loitering and prowling must be under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property located in the vicinity. See State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975). As to the first element the State must prove more than vaguely suspicious presence. As to the second, it must prove conduct that is alarming in nature, indicating an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety. See Von Goff v. State, 687 So.2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Further, because the crime is a misdemeanor, the elements of the offense must occur in the officer's presence, see K.R.R. v. State, 629 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and the elements must be completed prior to any police action, see E.B. v. State, 537 So.2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

The facts presented by the State did not demonstrate that J.S.B.'s actions constituted an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety. Therefore, the State failed to establish a prima facie case under section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1997), and the court erred in denying the juvenile's motion for judgment of acquittal.

Accordingly, we reverse the order finding J.S.B. guilty of loitering and prowling and remand with instructions that he be discharged.

PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).