Simms v. State

Citations: 51 So. 3d 1264; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 576; 2011 WL 252317Docket: No. 2D09-3971

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 27, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Damian Simms appeals his conviction for loitering or prowling and felonious possession of ammunition, alongside a 28.5-month prison sentence, contesting the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court defers to the trial court’s factual findings backed by substantial evidence but reviews legal applications de novo. The court finds that law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest Simms for loitering or prowling, leading to a reversal of his conviction.

According to Florida Statutes § 856.021, loitering or prowling is illegal when it occurs under circumstances that provoke justifiable alarm for safety. Key factors include a person's flight from police, refusal to identify themselves, or efforts to conceal themselves. Officers must allow individuals a chance to dispel any alarm before arresting them; failure to do so nullifies a potential conviction if the individual's explanation is credible.

The case background reveals that police acted on an anonymous tip about a suspicious man trying to open car doors in St. Petersburg on Halloween night. Officer Denmark, upon arrival, did not initially find anyone matching the description. Later, Officer Beauvois spotted Simms between parked cars and radioed Denmark, who then approached Simms, questioned him, and arrested him after he denied being between the vehicles and refused to identify his friend whose house he claimed to be coming from. The court concluded that the officers did not have the necessary probable cause for the arrest.

Mr. Simms was charged with loitering or prowling due to allegedly crouching between vehicles to conceal himself, as well as felonious possession of ammunition after a .22 caliber bullet was found during a search post-arrest. He moved to suppress evidence, claiming the arrest lacked probable cause, but the trial court denied his motion. Although the court recognized an anonymous tip as a basis for the stop, it acknowledged such tips generally have low reliability unless corroborated by independent investigation. The court cited prior case law indicating that a detailed description alone does not establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Additionally, the officers did not observe Mr. Simms attempting to commit any crime, and the court conceded the anonymous tip did not provide sufficient grounds for the arrest. The trial court also considered circumstantial evidence of loitering, noting Mr. Simms’ crouching behavior, which led to the conclusion that there was probable cause. However, the court found that being present on his own street at 10:30 p.m. was not inherently unusual for a law-abiding citizen. Ultimately, the trial court determined that Mr. Simms' actions were suspicious enough to justify the stop and subsequent arrest.

The second element of loitering or prowling requires that unusual behavior provokes a justifiable concern for safety. A defendant's explanation for their presence is not a crime element. Law enforcement can consider factors such as a person's flight from an officer or attempts to conceal themselves when assessing whether alarm is warranted. In this case, Mr. Simms did not flee or refuse identification, and while the trial court noted he attempted to conceal himself, there was no evidence to support a reasonable concern for imminent danger to persons or property. Previous case law (e.g., Woody v. State and Bowser v. State) established that mere suspicious behavior or anonymous tips are insufficient to justify loitering or prowling arrests. Officers must rely on their own observations for probable cause in misdemeanor cases. Additionally, the loitering and prowling statute must be applied cautiously due to its potential constitutional implications, as it can lead law enforcement to overreach.

Loitering statutes may face constitutional scrutiny, particularly when used as a catchall provision for detaining individuals without sufficient grounds for other charges. The reference to the loitering and prowling statute highlights its improper application, as seen in previous cases, where officers should have cited specific offenses rather than broadly applying loitering laws. In the case of Mr. Simms, the officers lacked a justifiable basis for his detention related to attempted burglary, and there was insufficient probable cause for an arrest on loitering or prowling. Consequently, the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence was erroneous, leading to a reversal of the decision and directions for the trial court to discharge Mr. Simms. The text also notes that the State did not claim that Mr. Simms was engaged in a consensual encounter with law enforcement, referencing established legal precedents regarding police-citizen interactions.