D.A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 10, 1994

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-05-10

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2016

7 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The officers' testimony that the appellant was arrested under a valid pickup order, without the order itself introduced into evidence, was not competent proof that the order was indeed legally valid.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 40 So. 3d 782 - DW v. State

Relies on Gernat v. Gernat · 368 So. 2d 395 - Lee v. State · 546 So. 2d 459 - Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-05-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellant seeks reversal of an adjudication of delinquency based on the State’s failure to present evidence that the arresting officer was performing a legal duty under a valid pickup order.

¶2The legality of an arrest is an essential element of the charge of resisting arrest without violence under section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1993). Lee v. State, 368 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) cert. denied, 378 So.2d 349 (Fla.1979). The officers’ testimony that the appellant was arrested under a valid pickup order, without the order itself introduced into evidence, was not competent proof that the order was indeed legally valid. See Smith v. State, 546 So.2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

¶3Based on the record and the State’s concession, we reverse the appellant’s adjudication of delinquency.