that he ran when he saw the police. Except for the fact that the Third District reversed D.T.B.’s adjudication of delinquency, this young person, who had done nothing more than run from the sight of the police, would have a criminal record. The Third District made its determination that D.T.B. should not have been adjudicated for resisting or obstructing an officer on two factors. First, the court said that Wardlow did not criminalize running from the police. Instead, the Third District reasoned, the Wardlow court simply gave the police another i 995) (concluding that juvenile’s presence at scene of automobile accident followed by flight when police approached was insufficient to justify finding juvenile resisted arrest without violence); F.B. v. State, 605 So.2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>). Under the majority’s reasoning in this case,
holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest holding that juveniles flight from the scene of an automobile theft when ordered by police officers to stop was insufficient to support resisting arrest without violence holding that an officers noncompliance with the strip search statute was not a defense to resisting an officer with violence holding that it is equally wellestablished that a suspects mere flight to escape arrest does not violate the resisting arrest statute holding that flight from police can help establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop