Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

362 So. 2d 1033

Docket No. HH-495.

Parker v. State

Abraham PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 22, 1978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1978-12-22

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-12-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2003

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

701978198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender; and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and A.S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3

ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

¶4This Court filed a per curiam opinion in this case on October 4, 1978. Appellant thereupon filed a Petition for Rehearing. Although we yet adhere to the result of our said per curiam opinion we determine, in the light of the Petition for Rehearing, that certain language of that opinion should be eliminated. Accordingly, it is

¶5ORDERED THAT

¶61. Our per curiam opinion filed October 4, 1978 is hereby withdrawn and our Revised Opinion of even date herewith is substituted in its place and stead.

¶72. Appellant's Petition for Rehearing is denied.

¶8

REVISED OPINION

¶9PER CURIAM.

¶10An information alleged that appellant violated Section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1975) by resisting, obstructing or opposing a municipal police officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty by offering or doing violence to such officer. Appellant contends his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence did not establish that the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of his legal duty since the municipal officer was outside his territorial jurisdiction at the time of the incident. We disagree.

¶11The evidence revealed that Officer Knowles, a Pensacola city police officer, was involved in an investigation concerning the sale of stolen property within the city. In the course of his investigation, Knowles detained several individuals outside the city *1034 limits for interrogation. At that time, appellant approached the scene and commenced to interfere with the investigation. Knowles identified himself as a city police officer. Appellant continued obstructing.

¶12We think the evidence was sufficient to establish that Officer Knowles was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty at the time of the incident. A municipal police officer, although not authorized to arrest outside his jurisdiction unless such arrest is in "hot pursuit", Section 901.25, Florida Statutes (1975), may conduct a lawful investigation outside his territorial jurisdiction. Where an individual with violence obstructs an officer, engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty, viz — that of investigation, a violation of Section 843.01 has been committed.

¶13The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

¶14McCORD, C.J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.

/362/so2d/1033 · .json · Public domain