## Facts

- A Broward County deputy saw M.J., age 17, around midday on a weekday in a high-crime area and believed he should have been in school.
- The deputy turned his vehicle to initiate a truancy investigation; M.J. ran and left the deputy’s view.
- The deputy located M.J. lying along a concrete wall inside a home’s porch area, physically detained him, and read Miranda warnings.
- M.J. said he was there to see a friend; initial knocking at the door produced no response.
- After another deputy arrived, the deputy found three boxes of new athletic shoes in bushes on the side of the house.
- A resident later appeared at a window and stated M.J. brought the shoes to the residence; the deputy did not ask whether M.J. had permission to be on the property.
- About five to ten minutes after detention, the deputy arrested M.J. for loitering and prowling and transported him to the sheriff’s office.
- At the time of arrest, the deputy did not know the shoes were stolen; only at the station did he learn of a reported shoe burglary, after which M.J. confessed during interrogation.
- In juvenile court, M.J. moved to suppress the confession as the product of an unlawful loitering-and-prowling arrest; the trial court denied the motion.
- M.J. entered a no-contest plea to burglary of a dwelling, with adjudication withheld and probation imposed, while reserving the right to appeal the dispositive suppression ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest M.J. for loitering and prowling under Florida law.
2. If probable cause was lacking, whether transporting M.J. to the station and interrogating him violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of his confession as fruit of an unlawful arrest.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order denying the motion to suppress and reversed the resulting disposition, remanding for further proceedings.
- The court agreed the officer could initiate a truancy investigation based on reasonable grounds that M.J. was absent from school without authorization.
- The court held the officer lacked probable cause to arrest M.J. for loitering and prowling.
- Because the station-house detention and interrogation followed an unlawful arrest, M.J.’s confession to burglary was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and had to be suppressed.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts defer to supported factual findings but review legal conclusions on suppression de novo.
- A truancy custody under Florida law may be based on reasonable grounds that a child is absent from school without authorization, but it does not itself supply probable cause for a separate criminal arrest.
- Florida’s loitering and prowling offense requires proof of both: (1) loitering or prowling in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals; and (2) circumstances creating a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property; both elements must exist to support a lawful arrest.
- An arrest must be supported by probable cause; evidence derived from an arrest lacking probable cause is suppressible as fruit of the unlawful detention, including a confession obtained during station-house interrogation.

## Conclusion

The court held that while the officer could detain M.J. for truancy-related purposes, the facts did not establish probable cause for loitering and prowling, and the subsequent transport to the station and interrogation were unlawful; therefore, M.J.’s burglary confession had to be suppressed and the juvenile disposition was reversed and remanded.


M.J. v. State, 121 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)