## Facts

- A juvenile was charged by delinquency petition with loitering or prowling under Fla. Stat. § 856.021.
- A Miami police officer testified he repeatedly observed the juvenile at an intersection in Miami where she did not live.
- On many occasions, including late at night, the juvenile walked into the intersection and spoke with drivers stopped at a traffic light.
- The officer repeatedly warned her to leave the intersection and stop loitering.
- The officer documented roughly 40 encounters on “field cards,” each reflecting similar conduct and warnings.
- At the adjudicatory hearing, the court admitted the field cards over objection.
- The juvenile court withheld adjudication of delinquency but found she committed the act and placed her under state supervision.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting police “field cards” documenting prior encounters as evidence, where the defense argued they reflected noncriminal conduct and improper propensity proof.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish loitering or prowling under Fla. Stat. § 856.021, including the statutory requirement of circumstances creating a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for safety.
3. Whether the statutory requirement that officers provide an opportunity to dispel alarm was satisfied before arrest.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s order.
- The court held the field cards were properly admitted as relevant evidence of repeated presence and conduct at the same location under similar circumstances.
- The court held the evidence, including the officer’s testimony and the field cards, was sufficient to support a finding that the juvenile’s conduct met § 856.021’s requirements.
- The disposition withholding adjudication while imposing supervision remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fla. Stat. § 856.021, loitering or prowling requires (1) presence in a place, time, or manner not usual for law-abiding individuals and (2) circumstances warranting a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property.
- Evidence of repeated, similar prior encounters and warnings may be admissible when offered to prove the contextual circumstances supporting statutory alarm, rather than solely to show bad character or criminal propensity.
- The statute contemplates that, where practicable, law enforcement should provide an opportunity for the individual to explain presence and conduct to dispel alarm; repeated warnings and continued conduct may support a finding that this requirement was effectively met.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a juvenile loitering finding, concluding that repeated documented encounters at a late hour and at a location unconnected to the juvenile, together with continued conduct after warnings, supported a reasonable alarm under § 856.021 and justified admitting the officer’s field-card records as relevant evidence.


B.A.A. v. State, 333 So. 2d 552 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1976)