SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The state appeals from an order granting the defendant’s “(c)(4)” motion to dismiss a count of an information charging kidnapping under section 787.01(l)(a)21, Florida Statutes (1993), by confining the five-year-old victim to facilitate the commission of a robbery.2 We reverse because, contrary to the decision below, the showing that the defendant took the child from an at least semi-public waiting room to a private examining room of a doctor’s office, where she took jewelry from the child, may be found to have constituted an imprisonment (by definition, against the will of the child, § 787.01(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993); Lafleur v. State, 661 So.2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)) which was not “inconsequential” and had “significance independent” of the taking so as to support the separate charge of kidnapping. See Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963, 965-66, (Fla.1983), aff'g, 399 So.2d 19, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (kidnapping established because movements of victim from open area to secluded one made crime substantially easier to commit and reduced risk of detection); Black v. State, 630 So.2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So.2d 976 (Fla.1994); Tutt v. State, 620 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gay v. State, 607 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review denied, 620 So.2d 760 (Fla.1993); Rodriguez v. State, 558 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI