The Third District Court of Appeal did not say what happens when police tell you to stand by. It affirmed a juvenile case, J.P. v. State, No. 3D2026-0845, in an opinion dated October 15, 2026, that consists of the word “Affirmed” followed by citations. The cases it cites say that a command such as “stand by” or “Hang on” can amount to a seizure when a reasonable person would feel compelled to comply. Judges Gordo, Lobree and Bokor were on the panel. The opinion is per curiam and does not name its author.
What the opinion says
The opinion states no facts. It does not say what the officer said or did, what J.P. did, what the trial court decided, or what question was raised on appeal. It comes from the Miami-Dade circuit court, Judge Orlando A. Prescott, and the lower-court case number begins with a “J” prefix. After “Affirmed,” it adds a “See” citation to section 843.02 of the Florida Statutes and then to six cases.
The statute it cites
Section 843.02 covers resisting an officer without violence. The opinion quotes it as making it a first-degree misdemeanor to resist, obstruct or oppose an officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty “without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer.”
When police tell you to stand by: what the cited cases say
The opinion does not explain how these cases apply to J.P. Taken from the parentheticals the court chose to include:
Baptiste v. State (Fla. 2008): a person is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes only if, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”
State v. D.F. (Fla. 3d DCA 2011): whether a seizure occurred by a show of authority “requires the application of an objective test,” looking at what the officers’ words and actions would have conveyed to a reasonable, innocent person.
J.C. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2009): the court concluded that a reasonable person would feel compelled to comply with an officer’s command, “Hang on.” The opinion’s parenthetical says a person in that position would “not feel free to walk away.”
Neeley v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2013): the court found that a “stand by” instruction was a detention because “a reasonable person under the circumstances would not feel free to leave or to disregard the instruction.”
Popple v. State (Fla. 1993): an officer’s directive restraining freedom of movement “constituted a show of authority,” whether it was described as a request or an order, “because a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe that he should comply.”
The opinion also cites United States v. Mendenhall (1980) for the idea that language or tone of voice indicating compliance might be compelled can indicate a seizure.
What this does and does not mean
This is not an opinion that holds, in its own words, that a “stand by” command is a seizure, or that J.P. was seized, or that the evidence was sufficient to support any charge. The court affirmed and gave the citations without connecting them to the facts. Anyone reading it can learn which authorities the court pointed to, but not how it reached its result. The cited cases, not this opinion, are the sources of the rule. The opinion 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. It is marked not final until disposition of a timely filed motion for rehearing.
Related decisions: Can Florida Punish a Defendant for Both Computer Solicitation of a Minor and Travel After Solicitation? The Sixth DCA Says Not Unless the Charges Show Separate Conduct Does the Speedy Trial Clock Start at the First Arrest for Other Drugs Found in the Same Traffic Stop? The Second DCA Says Not If It Is a Separate Criminal Episode
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.