DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

S.S., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-4125

[January 21, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Stacy M. Ross, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13002730DLOOA.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LEVINE, J.

S.S., a child, appeals the order withholding an adjudication of 

delinquency for resisting arrest without violence. We find that the trial 

court erred in denying the motion for judgment of dismissal because the 

police officer who detained appellant was not engaged in the lawful 

execution of a legal duty due to the fact that the police officer did not have 

reasonable suspicion that appellant was committing a crime.

Two officers from the Miramar police department responded to a 

dispatch. Upon arriving at the scene, officers observed a group of juveniles 

“causing a disturbance across the street from the incident location.” One 

officer estimated there were about thirty juveniles, and the other officer 

estimated there were about twenty juveniles. According to one officer, the 

juveniles, as a group, “were exhibiting hand gestures, aggressive 

behavior,” “screaming obscenities,” and “cursing across the street.”

When the officers exited their vehicles, about half of the juveniles ran 

away. One officer told the remaining juveniles to sit on the ground while 

he conducted an investigation. All of the juveniles complied with the officer 
2

except for appellant. 

One officer testified that appellant was told to sit on the ground several 

times but appellant refused. Appellant started to walk away but the officer 

grabbed appellant’s left bicep in an attempt to have appellant sit on the 

ground. Appellant pulled away and continued to walk away. The officer

grabbed appellant again, and appellant then pushed the officer and 

attempted to punch him. The officer gained control of appellant and placed

appellant on the ground, where appellant continued to resist. Another 

officer assisted in restraining appellant. 

On cross-examination, the officer admitted he did not see appellant 

fighting. The officer further admitted that he witnessed only yelling, and 

that appellant was one of the juveniles taking part in the disturbance by 

screaming and cursing across the street. The officer testified: 

Q You didn’t see [appellant] threatening anyone?

A Actually, I did. She was one—She was involved.

Q Really?

A Yes. She was screaming across the street. She was one 

of the juveniles taking part in the disturbance.

Q You didn’t see her threatening anyone?

A She was cursing across the street. 

The officer testified that he did not see appellant do anything illegal or 

criminal apart from the screaming and cursing that was part of the 

disturbance. The other officer stated on cross-examination that he did not 

see appellant do anything illegal. Neither officer testified to any specific 

words uttered by appellant during the disturbance. 

The trial court denied appellant’s motion for judgment of dismissal. 

The trial court found that the officer was in the lawful execution of a legal 

duty. The trial court stated that “the officer shows up and actually sees 

the defendant engaging in the screaming, the cursing, and the yelling. 

They could be investigating a breach of the peace.” The trial court relied 

on the disorderly conduct statute, section 877.03, Florida Statutes (2013),

by stating, “So, the ‘affect the peace and the quiet of persons who may 

witness them’ is what I’m going under.” The trial court found appellant 

guilty. This appeal ensues.
3

The denial of a motion for judgment of dismissal is reviewed de novo. 

R.H. v. State, 56 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “If the evidence, 

taken in a light most favorable to the state does not support a conviction, 

the motion must be granted. If the state establishes the existence of each 

element of the crime charged, then the motion must be denied.” Id.

(citation omitted). 

Section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2013), provides, in pertinent part, 

that “[w]hoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer . . . in the lawful 

execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person 

of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.” In other 

words, to support a conviction for resisting without violence, the state 

must prove: “(1) the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal 

duty; and, (2) the actions of the defendant obstructed, resisted or opposed 

the officer in the performance of that legal duty.” A.W. v. State, 82 So. 3d 

1136, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citation omitted). 

“In [resisting without violence] cases involving an investigatory 

detention, it is necessary for the State to prove that the officer had a 

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” A.T. v. State, 93 So. 3d 1159, 

1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citation omitted). Thus, whether the officer was 

engaged in a lawful duty turns on whether the officer had a reasonable 

suspicion that appellant had committed, was committing, or was about to 

commit the act of disorderly conduct when he instructed appellant to sit 

on the ground. Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1993) (To conduct 

an investigatory stop, a police officer must have “a well-founded, 

articulable suspicion” “that a person has committed, is committing or is 

about to commit a crime.”). “Whether an officer’s suspicion is reasonable 

is determined by the totality of the circumstances which existed at the time 

of the stop and is based solely on facts known to the officer before the 

stop.” Fuentes v. State, 24 So. 3d 1231, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). 

Section 877.03, Florida Statutes (2013), which criminalizes breach of 

the peace and disorderly conduct, provides as follows: 

Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the 

public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect 

the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or 

engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct 

as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, 

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree . . . . 

To withstand constitutional challenge, in State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 
4

641, 644 (Fla. 1976), the supreme court construed the statute to limit its 

application to “words which ‘by their very utterance . . . inflict injury or 

tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,’ or to words, known to be 

false, reporting some physical hazard in circumstances where such a 

report creates a clear and present danger of bodily harm to others.” Id.

(citations omitted). In other words, “no words except ‘fighting words’ or 

words like shouts of ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre fall within its proscription.” 

Id. (citation omitted). 

In C.N. v. State, 49 So. 3d 831, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), the police 

responded to break up a crowd of juveniles that included the defendant, 

who was “shouting and using foul language” and who refused to comply 

with the officer’s orders to leave. The Second District held that the 

defendant’s actions did not constitute disorderly conduct. Furthermore, 

because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the defendant 

was committing a crime, the defendant did not commit the offense of 

resisting without violence. The court noted that “[i]n order to prove 

disorderly conduct based on words alone, the State must show that the 

words either caused a crowd to gather, thereby resulting in safety 

concerns, or that the words incited a crowd to engage in an immediate 

breach of the peace.” Id. In C.N., there was no evidence of fighting or that 

the defendant instigated the gathering. 

In the present case, although there was testimony that the juveniles 

were exhibiting “hand gestures” and “aggressive behavior,” this testimony 

related to the juveniles’ behavior as a group, and not to appellant 

specifically. Rather, as to appellant, the evidence showed only that 

appellant engaged in screaming and cursing, which was insufficient to 

constitute disorderly conduct. Like in C.N., there was no evidence that 

appellant was fighting or any evidence that appellant instigated the crowd. 

Because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that appellant was 

committing the offense of disorderly conduct, the officer was consequently 

not engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty, and thus appellant 

could not be convicted of the crime of resisting without violence. 

Similarly, in A.S.C. v. State, 14 So. 3d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), 

the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of dismissal for 

disorderly conduct where the evidence showed only that the defendant

“may have been loud, and she may have been profane, but the record” was 

“devoid of evidence that her words either incited or were even intended to 

incite others to breach the peace, or posed an imminent danger to others.” 

Like in A.S.C., here appellant may have been loud and profane, but the 

record was devoid of evidence that her words incited or were intended to 

incite others to breach the peace, or posed an imminent danger to others. 
5

The dissent acknowledges C.N. and A.S.C., but highlights no testimony 

showing that appellant “caused a crowd to gather, thereby resulting in 

safety concerns, or . . . . incited a crowd to engage in an ‘immediate breach 

of the peace.’” Although the officer characterized appellant’s actions as 

“threatening,” the transcript does not support this characterization. When 

specifically asked what threatening acts appellant committed, the officer 

testified only that he saw appellant screaming and cursing. There was no 

testimony regarding the specific words used by appellant. Although 

appellant told the officer to “go to hell,” this statement was made only after 

the officer repeated commands to appellant to sit on the ground. A 

detention cannot be justified based on statements appellant made after 

the officer’s commands. Pritchett v. State, 677 So. 2d 317, 320 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 1996). Moreover, there was no evidence in the record that the 

statement “go to hell” did anything to “incite others to breach the peace”

or “posed an imminent danger to others.” A.S.C., 14 So. 3d at 1119. The 

officer did not articulate any objective facts which would establish that 

appellant made any threats to anyone. See Forman v. State, 128 So. 3d 

817, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (finding that although officer testified 

appellant was making “furtive movements” which caused the officer to be 

concerned for his safety, the officer “failed to testify to any objective 

circumstances that would support a finding that he had a reasonable belief 

that [appellant] posed a threat to the officers at the scene”). 

In sum, because the evidence showed only that appellant engaged in 

screaming and cursing, and because this is insufficient to constitute 

disorderly conduct, the trial court erred in denying the motion for 

judgment of dismissal. As such, we reverse the judgment and sentence. 

Reversed.

FORST, J., concurs. 

KLINGENSMITH, J., dissents with opinion.

KLINGENSMITH, J., dissenting.

I dissent from the majority’s opinion and would affirm the trial court’s 

order denying the motion for judgment of dismissal and ultimate finding 

of guilt. 

Upon arriving at the scene, the officer testified that he “observed a large 

group of juveniles, about thirty juveniles, causing a disturbance across the 

street from the incident location.” While the juveniles as a group, 

including appellant, were “exhibiting hand gestures, aggressive behavior,” 
6

and were “screaming obscenities,” the testimony presented showed that 

appellant herself was doing more. 

After the officer exited his vehicle, half of the juveniles fled in different 

directions, while the other half remained at the scene. They were told to 

sit on the ground while he conducted an investigation. This officer did not 

know if the juveniles were gang members, or whether any weapons were 

involved. All of the juveniles complied with the request to sit, except for 

appellant who refused several verbal requests to sit on the ground, stating 

she didn’t have to listen to the officer, and telling him to “go to hell.” When 

appellant began to walk away, the officer grabbed her left bicep in an 

attempt to sit her on the ground. She pushed the officer several times and 

attempted to punch him in the face. She was eventually placed into 

custody. Nowhere in the record was there any indication that appellant’s 

detention was in any way based on statements she made after the officer’s 

commands.

Based on his independent observation, the investigating officer could 

have reasonably suspected either a disturbance of the peace had occurred, 

as was argued in the trial court, or perhaps an assault. See §§ 784.011 & 

877.03, Fla. Stat. (2013). Whether or not to bring charges were dependent 

upon the outcome of any investigation undertaken by the officer. Along 

with the officer’s observations of the group as a whole and appellant in 

particular, the officer had reasonable suspicion under the “totality of the 

circumstances” to believe that a crime was being committed, or about to 

be committed. Therefore he was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal 

duty when he detained appellant along with the group of juveniles to 

pursue an investigation.

The majority appears to conclude that the crime of “disorderly conduct” 

could not have occurred under these circumstances. However, disorderly 

conduct can be founded on words alone if the words either caused a crowd 

to gather, thereby resulting in safety concerns, or if the words incited a 

crowd to engage in an “immediate breach of the peace.” C.H.C. v. State, 

988 So. 2d 1145, 1146–47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); A.S.C. v. State, 14 So. 3d 

1118, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Although one officer testified that 

appellant was screaming and cursing across the street, that officer also 

testified that she was threatening people. The fact that he did not 

articulate the precise words used in these threats does not negate the fact 

that threats were made. 

Although the majority states that the officer characterized appellant’s 

actions as “threatening,” they believe the transcript does not support this 

characterization. However, when the officer was asked if he saw appellant 
7

threatening anyone, he testified, “Actually, I did. She was one—She was 

involved.” He went on to testify that he saw her “scream” and “curse.” As 

a result, my colleagues in the majority interpret the officer’s testimony to 

mean that he did not see appellant do anything illegal or criminal apart 

from the screaming and cursing that was part of the disturbance. This 

testimony, as quoted in the majority opinion, was susceptible of differing 

interpretations. Neither party sought clarification from the officer about 

appellant’s precise conduct or words. However, his statements that she 

“screamed” and “cursed” could also be fairly interpreted as merely 

describing the manner and context in which the threats were delivered, 

rather than an attempt to define the threats themselves. What is certainly 

clear is that appellant’s statements were understood by the officer arriving

on the scene as “threats,” thus prompting his intervention. 

According to the case law relied on by the majority in reaching its 

decision, C.N. v. State, 49 So. 3d 831, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), appellant’s 

role in instigating the gathering is a relevant factor to be considered in 

whether she breached the peace. The only way to make that determination 

was by conducting an investigation. These observed threats had the 

potential of taking her conduct beyond mere words and obscenities and 

into the realm of unlawful conduct. “[P]rotected speech can be rendered 

unprotected by a defendant’s additional physical actions.” Barry v. State, 

934 So. 2d 656, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 

Whether the facts as gathered would have been sufficient to secure a 

conviction on any charges is not the issue here. While the majority 

highlights the fact that another officer at the scene stated on crossexamination that he did not see appellant do anything illegal, this is not 

dispositive of the matter – the other responding officer testified that he did 

see the appellant engaged in possible illegal conduct, thus creating an 

issue of fact properly resolved by the trial judge as factfinder. At the very 

least, the appellant’s observed actions were sufficient to reasonably allow 

the officer to conduct an investigation at the scene to determine the extent 

of appellant’s involvement, including whether she was involved in causing 

the crowd to gather, incited the crowd, or otherwise presented a safety 

risk. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, these acts were 

sufficient to conclude that the officer was performing a legal duty during 

this encounter.

In sum, the observed acts of appellant that resulted in her detention 

had the potential to meet the criteria for disorderly conduct. Therefore, 

the officer had the requisite reasonable suspicion to investigate, and was 

thus performing a legal duty when he sought to obtain appellant’s 
8

compliance with his instructions. See E.A.B. v. State, 851 So. 2d 308, 311 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2003). For these reasons, I would affirm.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.