DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER KRICKOVICH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

No. 4D21-842

[February 9, 2022]

Petition for Writ of Prohibition to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jill K. Levy, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 19-

007002MM10A and 20-006002MM10A.

Jeremy J. Kroll of Dutko & Kroll, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

GROSS, J.

Christopher Krickovich, a deputy sheriff, petitions for a writ of 

prohibition to prevent his prosecution for two counts of misdemeanor 

battery on a juvenile. Petitioner alleges that he has both Stand Your 

Ground immunity under section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2018), and 

immunity from prosecution under section 870.05, Florida Statutes (2018), 

which justifies an officer’s use of force to disperse an unlawful assembly.1

We deny the petition. The trial court’s refusal to grant petitioner Stand 

Your Ground Immunity was supported by the evidence at the Stand Your 

Ground hearing, which included video evidence. 

Petitioner complains that because the trial court granted immunity to 

another officer, he was entitled to similar treatment. However, the conduct 

1 The 2018 statutes were still in effect on April 18, 2019, the date of the incident. 

See Ch. 2019-2, § 1, Laws of Fla. (eff. July 3, 2019).
2

of the officers was not the same.2 The first officer merely pushed the 

juvenile to the ground. The juvenile was already face down on the ground 

when petitioner positioned himself over him and hit the juvenile’s face once 

into the pavement. Petitioner had the juvenile pinned down, holding his 

head and neck with both hands before he released his right hand and 

punched him once in the head. The juvenile may have tensed his body 

and lifted his face from the pavement, but the video from petitioner’s body 

camera does not show the juvenile actively resisting arrest. 

We write primarily to address petitioner’s argument that he was entitled 

to immunity under section 870.05, Florida Statutes (2018). We hold that 

section 870.05 is not an immunity statute; rather, the statute creates a 

defense available at trial.

Section 870.05 must be read in conjunction with section 870.04. Both 

statutes were enacted together in 1868. See Ch. 1637, subc. 7, §§ 1, 2, 

and 6, Laws of Fla. (1868). Section 870.04 provides, in pertinent part:

If any number of persons, whether armed or not, are 

unlawfully, riotously, or tumultuously assembled in any 

county, city, or municipality, the sheriff or the sheriff's 

deputies, or the mayor, or any commissioner, council 

member, alderman, or police officer of the city or municipality 

. . . shall go among the persons so assembled, or as near to 

them as may be done with safety, and shall in the name of the 

state command all the persons so assembled immediately and 

peaceably to disperse. If such persons do not thereupon 

immediately and peaceably disperse, such officers shall 

command the assistance of all such persons in seizing, 

arresting, and securing such persons in custody. If any 

person present being so commanded to aid and assist in 

seizing and securing such rioter or persons so unlawfully 

assembled, or in suppressing such riot or unlawful assembly, 

refuses or neglects to obey such command, or, when required 

by such officers to depart from the place, refuses and neglects 

to do so, the person shall be deemed one of the rioters or 

persons unlawfully assembled, and may be prosecuted and 

punished accordingly. 

§ 870.04, Fla. Stat. (2018).

2 The other officer’s conduct is the subject of the appeal in State v. Lacerra, 4D21-

399.
3

Section 870.05 states:

If, by reason of the efforts made by any of said officers or by 

their direction to disperse such assembly, or to seize and 

secure the persons composing the same, who have refused to 

disperse, any such person or other person present is killed or 

wounded, the said officers and all persons acting by their 

order or under their direction, shall be held guiltless and 

fully justified in law; and if any of said officers or any person 

acting under or by their direction is killed or wounded, all 

persons so assembled and all other persons present who when 

commanded refused to aid and assist said officer shall be held 

answerable therefor. 

§ 870.05, Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis supplied).

Section 870.05 uses language consistent with a defense at trial (“shall 

be held guiltless and fully justified in law”), not immunity. “Justification”

and “guilt” are trial concepts. For example, section 776.05, Florida 

Statutes (2018), describes situations where a law enforcement officer “is 

justified in the use of any force.” The Florida Supreme Court has 

recognized that such language is consistent with a defense at trial, as 

opposed to a statute, such as section 776.032, that plainly affords pretrial 

immunity. See, e.g., State v. Peraza, 259 So. 3d 728, 732 (Fla. 2018).

Although it was considering section 870.05 in a civil context, the 

Florida Supreme Court’s discussion in Cleveland v. City of Miami, 263 So. 

2d 573 (Fla. 1972), supports the notion that the statute provides a defense 

at trial rather than pretrial immunity. The supreme court explained when 

the statute applies:

Before F.S. Section 870.05, F.S.A. can be used to absolve a 

policeman of liability for a death it must be shown to the 

satisfaction of the trial judge and jury that the killing occurred 

during (1) an unlawful riotous or tumultuous assembly; And 

(2) while the police were attempting to disperse the assembly 

or seize its members who refused to disperse.

Id. at 576. The reference to the “trial judge and jury” indicates that the 

court viewed section 870.05 as a defense at trial.

Nothing in section 870.05 suggests a legislative intent to provide for 

immunity. This is in contrast to section 776.032, which expressly provides 

for immunity.
4

The Petition for Writ of Prohibition is denied.

MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.