Geoffrey Madge v. State

The appellant challenges the trial court’s finding that he violated his probation by committing the offense of loitering and prowling. He argues that the State’s evidence did not establish loitering and prowling because the responding officers did not personally observe any type of behavior that appeared to be on the verge of ripening into a criminal act. We agree and reverse.

After the appellant was placed on probation, the State filed an affidavit of violation of probation (“VOP”), which alleged that the appellant had committed the new offense of loitering and prowling. 1

The State’s case…