AW v. State, 15 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
AW v. State, 15 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Ronald Brown, Jr. v. Sheriff Mike Williams (fladistctapp, 2019-03-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ronald Brown, Jr. v. Sheriff Mike Williams
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Hatcher v. State, 15 So. 3d 929, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); See also In re Forfeiture of 1994 Ford Explorer, 203 So. 3d 992, 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); City of Coral Springs v. Forfeiture of a 1997 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, 803 So. 2d 847, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Florida v. Ricky Alphonso Rand (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“Probable cause for arrest exists when the totality of the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge would cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person being arrested.” Hatcher v. State, 15 So. 3d 929, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Chavez v. State, 832 So. 2d 730, 747 (Fla. 2002)). (6) Officer Jackson’s Knowledge and Perspective.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Florida v. Ricky Alphonso Rand
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
We evaluate whether “the totality of the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge would cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person being arrested.” Hatcher v. State, 15 So. 3d 929, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Dahl 5 v. Holley, 312 F.3d 1228, 1234 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that “arresting officers, in deciding whether probable cause exists, are not required to sift through conflicting evidence or resolve issues of credibility, so long as the totality of the circumstances present a sufficient basis for believing that an offens…
discussed Cited "see" State v. AE
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hatcher v. State, 15 So.3d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Tarver v. State, 961 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Green v. State, 831 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); McGowan v. State, 778 So.2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Bell v. State, 792 So.2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Edwards v. State, 532 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
discussed Cited "see" State v. A.E.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hatcher v. State, 15 So.3d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Tarver v. State, 961 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Green v. State, 831 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); McGowan v. State, 778 So.2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Bell v. State, 792 So.2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Edwards v. State, 532 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hughes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id.; see also Hatcher v. State, 15 So.3d 929, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that probable cause exists when the totality of the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge would cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person being arrested).
A.W., A Child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
5D08-2920.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug 7, 2009.
15 So. 3d 929
Sawaya.
Published

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

SAWAYA, J.

A.W., a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for possession of cocaine, contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for dismissal at the conclusion of the evidence portion of the trial. As to that issue, we affirm without further discussion.

A.W. also contends that the trial court erred in imposing costs of prosecution pursuant to section 938.29, Florida Statutes (2009), in the amount of $150. We agree. It is clear that section 938.29 does not authorize the imposition of costs of prosecution in delinquency cases, and the State concedes that imposition of these costs is error.

Accordingly, the order of delinquency is affirmed. That part of the order assessing the costs of prosecution is reversed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

MONACO, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur.