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
- Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest M.J. for loitering and prowling under Florida law.
- 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.