Indeed, “[a] person is not entitled to use physical force to contest even an illegal arrest.” State v. A.R.R., 113 So.3d 942, 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); see also S.D. v. State, 11 So.3d 401, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (upholding battery conviction where officer intervened in a physical confrontation between customers at a market). Mr. Pinto also reasons that because he had not violated a law before Deputy Kinney pushed him, Deputy Kinney “was not engaged in his lawful duties at the time of the alleged offensive physical contact, thus precluding any probable cause to arrest Mr. Pinto for Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer.”
Here, Sloan focuses on an element of each identified offense that requires the State to prove that the officer is in the lawful performance or execution of his duty. “An officer is engaged in the performance of his official duties when acting within the scope of his employment.” State v. A.R.R., 113 So.3d 942, 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
“An officer is engaged in the performance of his official duties when acting within the scope of his employment.” State v. A.A.R., 113 So.3d 942, 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). As stated in Clinton v. State, 421 So.2d 186, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), “the scope of an officer's official duties is not coextensive with his power to arrest ... an officer's duties may cover many functions which have nothing whatsoever to do with making arrests.”
State v. Upton, 392 So.2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (citation omitted). “The purpose of such a motion is to test the legal sufficiency of the underlying case, i.e. whether there is a dispute of material fact (not just a dispute of unsupported conclusory allegations)....” State v. Nunez, 881 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citations omitted); see also State v. A.R.R., 113 So.3d 942, 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“Motions to dismiss criminal charges are treated like summary judgment motions in civil cases, the purpose of which is to test the legal sufficiency of the underlying case.” (citations omitted)).
"The purpose of such a motion is to test the legal sufficiency of the underlying case, i.e. whether there is a dispute of material fact (not just a dispute of unsupported conclusory allegations) . . . ." State v. Nunez, 881 So. 2d 658, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citations omitted); see also State v. A.R.R., 113 So. 3d 942, 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ("Motions to dismiss criminal charges are treated like summary judgment motions in civil cases, the purpose of which is to test the legal sufficiency of the underlying case." (citations omitted)).