Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 509.143 (2025)

Disorderly conduct on the premises of an establishment; detention; arrest; immunity from liability.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

509.143 Disorderly conduct on the premises of an establishment; detention; arrest; immunity from liability.—

(1) An operator may take a person into custody and detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time if the operator has probable cause to believe that the person was engaging in disorderly conduct in violation of s. 877.03 on the premises of the licensed establishment and that such conduct was creating a threat to the life or safety of the person or others. The operator shall call a law enforcement officer to the scene immediately after detaining a person under this subsection.

(2) A law enforcement officer may arrest, either on or off the premises of the licensed establishment and without a warrant, any person the officer has probable cause to believe violated s. 877.03 on the premises of a licensed establishment and, in the course of such violation, created a threat to the life or safety of the person or others.

(3) An operator or a law enforcement officer who detains a person under subsection (1) or makes an arrest under subsection (2) is not civilly or criminally liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention on the basis of any action taken in compliance with subsection (1) or subsection (2).

(4) A person who resists the reasonable efforts of an operator or a law enforcement officer to detain or arrest that person in accordance with this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the person did not know or did not have reason to know that the person seeking to make such detention or arrest was the operator of the establishment or a law enforcement officer.

History.—s. 1, ch. 86-174; ss. 14, 52, ch. 90-339; s. 4, ch. 91-429.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 509.143

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§509.143(4)RESIST OFFICERRESIST DETENTION ARREST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFCM · 1st

§509.143(4)CRIMES AGAINST PERSONRESIST DETENTION PUBLIC LODGE OPERATORM · 1st

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case: Epstein v. Toys-R-Us Delaware, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Epstein v. Toys-R-Us Delaware, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2003). · cites it 2× “Epstein was arrested for disorderly conduct in violation of § 509.143 of the Florida Statutes. Id. at 75-76.”

Lawson v. City of Miami Beach, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2012). “There, the officers completed a sworn arrest affidavit charging Lawson with Disorderly Conduct in an Establishment in violation of Florida Statutes § 509.143, as well as Trespass on Property in violation of Florida Statutes § 810.”

Guerrero v. City of Coral Gables (S.D. Fla. 2022). · cites it 32× “Further, Defendants argue that the City cannot be liable for false arrest or imprisonment because the Officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and the City is statutorily immune from liability for Plaintiff’s false arrest or false imprisonment claim under Fla. Stat. §…”

Guerrero v. City of Coral Gables (S.D. Fla. 2022). · cites it 18× “Defendants submit that although Defendants articulated immunity as an affirmative defense in their Answer, due to an oversight, they failed to expressly state that they were claiming immunity pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 509.143 (3). See ECF No. [69].”

— 509.143(2) — 1 case

Guerrero v. City of Coral Gables (S.D. Fla. 2022). “Further, Defendants argue that the City cannot be liable for false arrest or imprisonment because the Officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and the City is statutorily immune from liability for Plaintiff’s false arrest or false imprisonment claim under Fla. Stat. §…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.