Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

605 So. 2d 578

Docket No. 91-2538.

FB v. State

F.B., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 29, 1992.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-09-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a suspect's mere presence at the scene of a crime and flight therefrom is insufficient....”

quoted by 1 later decision, including OB v. State

Relies on Gernat v. Gernat · 368 So. 2d 395 - Lee v. State · 467 So. 2d 796 - JW v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-09-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 2010

13 state decisions

60199220002010decided

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 →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Julie M. Levitt, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5On 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.

¶6The 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).

¶7The court's verdict on the charge for resisting arrest without violence is therefore reversed.

/605/so2d/578 · .json · Public domain