PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
BARKDULL and NESBITT, JJ., concur.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge (dissenting).
While the actions of the defendant may well have given rise to a founded suspicion that he had committed some offense in the immediate past, they gave no indication whatever that he was about to engage in criminal conduct in the near future, as is required to sustain a charge of loitering and prowling. D.A. v. State,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.