When an officer tells a juvenile to stand by, is it a seizure? A juvenile resisting-an-officer appeal in Miami-Dade ended with one word from the Third District Court of Appeal, “Affirmed,” followed by citations about when a police command counts as a seizure. The case is J.P. v. State, No. 3D2026-0845, dated October 15, 2026, and the opinion states no facts and gives no reasoning. What it does show is the authority the court pointed to.
The statute. The opinion cites section 843.02, Florida Statutes, resisting an officer without violence, which it quotes as a first-degree misdemeanor when done “without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer.”
Why seizure matters to the resisting charge. Section 843.02 applies only when the officer is executing legal process or lawfully performing a legal duty. Whether an encounter became a seizure, and whether that seizure was lawful, are separate questions. The opinion does not say how it resolved either one.
When an officer tells a juvenile to stand by: the cases the court cited. The opinion lists Baptiste v. State (Fla. 2008), State v. D.F. (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), United States v. Mendenhall (1980), J.C. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), Neeley v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) and Popple v. State (Fla. 1993). Their quoted language, as the opinion gives it, is that a seizure turns on whether, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” In Neeley, “stand by” was found to be a detention because “a reasonable person under the circumstances would not feel free to leave or to disregard the instruction.” In J.C., the command was “Hang on.” In Popple, a directive “constituted a show of authority” whether it was called a request or an order.
What the opinion leaves out. It does not say what the officer said to J.P., what J.P. did, what the trial court ruled, or what issue was raised. It does not say that J.P. was seized, or that any command in this case was a seizure. It cites the 2026 edition of section 843.02; the 2025 and 2026 texts of that section are identical, so the year does not change the rule described. The panel was Judges Gordo, Lobree and Bokor, and the opinion is per curiam. It is not final until disposition of a timely filed motion for rehearing.
Because the court gave no explanation, this case is better read as a pointer to the cited authorities than as a ruling in its own right.
Related decisions: Can You Be Convicted of Both Computer Solicitation and Travel After Solicitation in Florida? Not If the Charges Rest on the Same Conduct Does the Speedy Trial Clock Start at the First Arrest if Police Find Different Drugs in the Same Car? Not Always
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: J.P. v. State, No. 3D2026-0845 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 15, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.