B.A.A. v. State
Florida District Court of Appeal
333 So. 2d 552 (1976)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
B.A.A. (defendant), a juvenile, was charged with violating a statute that prohibited loitering. At trial, Miami Police Department Officer Brown testified that he had written one field card for each interaction he had with B.A.A., for a total of 40 field cards. Each field card reflected that Officer Brown saw B.A.A. walk into the same intersection to speak with drivers who were stopped at the traffic light, and each time, Officer Brown told B.A.A. to get out of the intersection and stop loitering. The cards reflected that B.A.A.’s behavior continued late into the night and that B.A.A. did not live in the neighborhood where Officer Brown saw her. Officer Brown eventually arrested B.A.A. for loitering. The court admitted the field cards into evidence. As permitted under Florida law, the court withheld adjudication, meaning that the court determined that B.A.A. committed the act of loitering, but the court declined to find that B.A.A. was a delinquent and instead placed her under state supervision. B.A.A. appealed, arguing that the court improperly admitted the field cards because the acts recorded in the cards were not crimes and merely evidenced that B.A.A. had a propensity to approach and talk to drivers.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barkdull, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.