Florida Statute 499.065 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 499
FLORIDA DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 499.065

499.065 Inspections; imminent danger.—

¹(1) Notwithstanding s. 499.051, the department shall inspect each prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, prescription drug repackager establishment, veterinary prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, limited prescription drug veterinary wholesale distributor establishment, and retail pharmacy drug wholesale distributor establishment that is required to be permitted under this part as often as necessary to ensure compliance with applicable laws and rules. The department shall have the right of entry and access to these facilities at any reasonable time.

(2) To protect the public from prescription drugs that are adulterated or otherwise unfit for human or animal consumption, the department may examine, sample, seize, and stop the sale or use of prescription drugs to determine the condition of those drugs. The department may immediately seize and remove any prescription drugs if the Secretary of Business and Professional Regulation or his or her designee determines that the prescription drugs represent a threat to the public health. The owner of any property seized under this section may, within 10 days after the seizure, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for whatever relief is appropriate. At any time after 10 days, the department may destroy the drugs as contraband.

¹(3) The department may determine that a prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, prescription drug repackager establishment, veterinary prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, limited prescription drug veterinary wholesale distributor establishment, or retail pharmacy drug wholesale distributor establishment that is required to be permitted under this part is an imminent danger to the public health and shall require its immediate closure if the establishment fails to comply with applicable laws and rules and, because of the failure, presents an imminent threat to the public’s health, safety, or welfare. Any establishment so deemed and closed shall remain closed until allowed by the department or by judicial order to reopen.

(4) For purposes of this section, a refusal to allow entry to the department for inspection at reasonable times, or a failure or refusal to provide the department with required documentation for purposes of inspection, constitutes an imminent danger to the public health.

History.—s. 23, ch. 2003-155; s. 6, ch. 2004-328; s. 6, ch. 2006-92; s. 107, ch. 2008-6; s. 34, ch. 2008-207; s. 6, ch. 2012-143; s. 9, ch. 2019-99.

¹Note.—Section 11, ch. 2019-99, which was codified as s. 499.02851, provides in part that “[i]mplementation of sections 2 through 10 of this act is contingent upon authorization granted under federal law, rule, or approval.” If the contingency occurs, subsections (1) and (3), as amended by s. 9, ch. 2019-99, will read:

(1) Notwithstanding s. 499.051, the department shall inspect each prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, international prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, prescription drug repackager establishment, veterinary prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, limited prescription drug veterinary wholesale distributor establishment, and retail pharmacy drug wholesale distributor establishment that is required to be permitted under this part as often as necessary to ensure compliance with applicable laws and rules. The department shall have the right of entry and access to these facilities at any reasonable time.

* * * * *

(3) The department may determine that a prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, international prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, prescription drug repackager establishment, veterinary prescription drug wholesale distributor establishment, limited prescription drug veterinary wholesale distributor establishment, or retail pharmacy drug wholesale distributor establishment that is required to be permitted under this part is an imminent danger to the public health and shall require its immediate closure if the establishment fails to comply with applicable laws and rules and, because of the failure, presents an imminent threat to the public’s health, safety, or welfare. Any establishment so deemed and closed shall remain closed until allowed by the department or by judicial order to reopen.

F.S. 499.065 on Google Scholar

F.S. 499.065 on Casetext

Amendments to 499.065

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 499.065

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 499.065.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 499.065

Total Results: 14

Antoine E. McCloud v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2018-12-20T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 260 So. 3d 911

Snippet: the law."); State v. Patterson , 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. 659, 660 (1914) ("[L]egislative intent

Florida Real Estate Commission v. Williams

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1970-09-23T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 240 So. 2d 304, 1970 Fla. LEXIS 2352

Snippet: State [ex rel. Johnson] v. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. 659; Willis v. Special Road & Bridge District

Jackson v. Princeton Farms Corp.

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1962-01-31T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 140 So. 2d 570

Snippet: ; State ex rel. Johnson v. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. 659 (1914); Bradley v. State, 79 Fla. 651,

Schaal v. Race

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1961-12-07T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 135 So. 2d 252

Snippet: 121; State ex rel. Johnson v. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. 659; and Escambia Land & Mfg. Co. v

Duval v. Thomas

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1958-10-23T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 107 So. 2d 148

Snippet: United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 65 S.Ct. 761, 89 L.Ed. 1101. The purpose of the law

Lake Gibson Land Company v. Lester

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1958-05-07T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 102 So. 2d 833

Snippet: States v. Willow River Power Company, 324 U.S. 499, 65 S.Ct. 761, 89 L.Ed. 1101. Under the reasonable

Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1938-07-27T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 183 So. 145, 133 Fla. 590, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1019

Snippet: the U.S. Supreme Court, 253 U.S. 233, 40 S. Ct. 499, 65 L. Ed. 878, see infra. See, also, Carman v. Hickman

State Ex Rel. Harris v. Bowden

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1933-10-09T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 150 So. 259, 112 Fla. 288

Snippet: 212,213 So. 548; Johnson v. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. 659; Lane v. State, 63 Fla. 220, 57 So. 622

Realty Bond & Share Co. v. Englar

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1932-02-23T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 143 So. 152, 104 Fla. 329

Snippet: 430, 52 So. 710; State vs. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. 659; Willis vs. Special R. B. Dist., etc.,

City of West Palm Beach v. Amos

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1930-10-17T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 130 So. 710, 100 Fla. 891

Snippet: as by express words. State v. Patterson,67 Fla. 499, 65 So. R. 659; Getzen v. Sumter County, 89 Fla. 45,103

State Ex Rel. Davis v. Knight

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1929-11-13T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 124 So. 461, 98 Fla. 891

Snippet: . Cas. 1914 B 965; State v. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. R. 659; Willis v. S. R. B. Dist. No. 2, 73

State Ex Rel. Davis v. Rose

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1929-05-09T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 122 So. 225, 97 Fla. 710

Snippet: accomplished. See State v. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. R. 659; Willis v. Special Road Bridge District

Getzen v. Sumter County

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1925-02-02T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 103 So. 104, 89 Fla. 45

Snippet: law (State ex rel. Johnson v. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 South. Rep. 659; State ex rel. Clarkson v. Phillips

State ex rel. Buford v. Watkins

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1923-04-28T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 88 Fla. 392, 102 So. 347

Snippet: 968; State ex rel. Johnson v. Patterson, 67 Fla. 499, 65 South. Rep. 659; State ex rel. Triay v. Burr, 79