a police officer’s commands led Officer Quintero to believe that M.R. was in the process of committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime that posed an imminent threat to the surrounding property and the complex’s businesses. Further, Detective Maribal testified that M.C. did not do anything to dispel the officers’ concern that there was an imminent threat to the public property. See C.H.S., 795 So.2d at 1088. Therefore, M.R.’s actions, in pulling on a door handle of a closed business at a time when all of the businesses were closed, attempting to hide and flee the scene when a police officer approached, are all factual circumstances supporting the conclusion that M.R.’s behavior posed an immediate threat to the public safety or surrounding property. See B.J., 951 So.2d at 103 (<HOLDING>); contra Gonzalez v. State, 828 So.2d 496, 498
holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary holding the first element was proven because defendant was hiding at 130 am in the back of a pickup truck near a closed business that was the subject of a burglary call holding that defendant was still in the commission of a burglary despite its technical completion when she caused the death of three persons during a police chase that began at the scene of the burglary holding second element is met where defendant was hiding under circumstances suggesting that the police interrupted a burglary in progress and where there was a potential threat to public safety if defendant joined a crime in progress or participated in the aftermath by assisting the escape or disposing of property stolen in the burglary holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary