Case Name: Robert CARTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-12-08
Citations: 516 So. 2d 312
Docket Number: No. 85-2413
Parties: Robert CARTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 516
Pages: 312–314

Head Matter:
Robert CARTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 85-2413.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 8, 1987.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Mark J. Berkowitz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
NESBITT, Judge.
On rehearing, we vacate our majority opinion filed June 2, 1987 and replace it with the following.
Carter appeals his convictions, following his nolo contendere pleas to the charges of burglary and grand theft. We reverse the convictions because the trial court erred in denying Carter's motion to suppress evidence seized and statements made by him after his arrest.
On the afternoon of March 19, 1984, residents of a Carol City neighborhood reported to police that a suspicious-looking, tall, thin, black male, wearing a light-colored shirt had approached their front door and had asked for a drink of water. Based on the reports, police officer Hoadley issued a "be-on-the-lookout" (BOLO) for a such a person. Officer Bullen stopped Carter, who fit the description, a short while later while he was riding on a bicycle on a public street. Bullen and officer Hoadley, who arrived later, questioned Carter. After Carter gave inconsistent explanations for being in the neighborhood, the officers arrested him for loitering and prowling. The officers then searched the bag Carter was carrying, which revealed a number of stolen items. Carter admitted to having burglarized an apartment and led the police to the apartment. Carter was subsequently charged with burglary and grand theft. After the trial court rejected Carter's bid to have the evidence obtained in the search and his statements suppressed as improperly acquired as a result of an unlawful arrest, Carter pled nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress.
Carter correctly contends that the evidence and statements were products of an unlawful search and should have been suppressed. In the absence of a warrant, a police officer may arrest a suspect for committing a misdemeanor, only where every element of the crime is committed in the officer's presence. § 901.15(1), Fla.Stat. (1983); T.L.M. v. State, 371 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Before an officer may arrest an individual for loitering and prowling, it must appear that
(1) the defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals; [and] (2) such loitering and prowling were under circumstances that warranted a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104, 106 (Fla.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975); accord Springfield v. State, 481 So.2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); see § 856.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). Since the offense of loitering and prowling is a misdemeanor, § 856.021(3), Fla.Stat. (1983), before the officers could validly arrest Carter without a warrant, he had to have committed the requisite acts in their presence. Carter's conduct in the officer's presence, namely, riding a bicycle in the early afternoon on a public road, while carrying a bag, cannot be considered to have satisfied the elements required to establish probable cause to arrest for loitering and prowling. See D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Furthermore, since neither of the arresting officers witnessed any of the acts reported by the Carol City residents, they could not rely on those acts to decide that they had probable cause to arrest Carter. Towne v. State, 495 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied, 504 So.2d 768 (Fla.1987); Springfield, 481 So. 2d at 978; see C.D. v. State, 501 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); T.L.M., 371 So.2d at 688; § 901.15(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). Consequently, the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Carter for loitering and prowling. The evidence the officers obtained from Carter and the statements made by him, were therefore products of an unlawful arrest and were subject to suppression. See C.D., 501 So.2d at 170; State v. Arnold, 475 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); V.S. v. State, 446 So.2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, since the trial court erred in denying Carter's motion to suppress, we reverse his convictions.