Florida Statute 538.06 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

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

Chapter 538
SECONDHAND DEALERS AND SECONDARY METALS RECYCLERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 538.06

538.06 Holding period.—

(1)(a) A secondhand dealer may not sell, barter, exchange, alter, adulterate, use, or in any way dispose of any secondhand good:

1. That is a precious metal, a gemstone, or jewelry; an antique furnishing, fixture, or decorative object; or an item of art as defined in s. 686.501 within 30 calendar days after the date on which the good is acquired.

2. That is not described in subparagraph 1. within 15 calendar days after the date on which the good is acquired.

3. Within 30 calendar days after the date on which the good is acquired if the secondhand dealer uses an automated kiosk.

Such holding periods are not applicable when the person known by the secondhand dealer to be the person from whom the goods were acquired desires to redeem, repurchase, or recover the goods, provided the dealer can produce the record of the original transaction with verification that the customer is the person from whom the goods were originally acquired.

(b) For purposes of this subsection, the term “antique” means the item is at least 30 years old and has special value because of its age.

(2) A secondhand dealer must maintain actual physical possession of all secondhand goods throughout a transaction. It is unlawful for a secondhand dealer to accept title or any other form of security in secondhand goods in lieu of actual physical possession. A secondhand dealer who accepts title or any other form of security in secondhand goods in lieu of actual physical possession commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Upon probable cause that goods held by a secondhand dealer are stolen, a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction may place a 90-day written hold order on the goods. However, the hold may be extended beyond 90 days by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a finding of probable cause that the property is stolen and further holding is necessary for the purposes of trial or to safeguard such property. The dealer shall assume all responsibility, civil or criminal, relative to the property or evidence in question, including responsibility for the actions of any employee with respect thereto.

(4) While a hold order is in effect, the secondhand dealer must, upon request, release the property subject to the hold order to the custody of a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction for use in a criminal investigation. The release of the property to the custody of the law enforcement officer is not considered a waiver or release of the secondhand dealer’s rights or interest in the property. Upon completion of the criminal proceeding, the property must be returned to the secondhand dealer unless the court orders other disposition. When such other disposition is ordered, the court shall additionally order the person from whom the secondhand dealer acquired the property to pay restitution to the secondhand dealer in the amount that the secondhand dealer paid for the property together with reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

(5) All dealers in secondhand property regulated by this chapter shall maintain transaction records for 3 years.

History.—s. 2, ch. 89-533; s. 1, ch. 90-192; s. 4, ch. 90-318; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 3, ch. 93-97; s. 2, ch. 95-287; s. 21, ch. 2000-138; s. 4, ch. 2006-201; s. 3, ch. 2016-59.

F.S. 538.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 538.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 538.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 538.06

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

S538.06 2 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - ACCEPT TITLE AS SECURITY IN LIEU OF GOODS - M: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 538.06

Total Results: 16

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1999-06-14

Snippet: twenty-two percent interest provided in section 538.06, Florida Statutes, and to retain any proceeds from

Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1972-08-22

Citation: 266 So. 2d 64

Snippet: Pembroke v. Caudill, 1948, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R. 2d 1395. The prime factor is whether the

First National Bank of Hollywood v. Freedman

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1971-02-09

Citation: 244 So. 2d 183, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6993

Snippet: 2d 574, 576, aff. 269 App.Div. 921, 57 N.Y.S.2d 538. [6] 1 Am.Jur.2d 654, Actions, § 139; 45 Am.Jur.2d

Hutchison v. Tompkins

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1970-09-14

Citation: 240 So. 2d 180, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5566

Snippet: Pembroke v. Caudill, 1948, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395. . See 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, § 103

Popwell v. Abel

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-09-19

Citation: 226 So. 2d 418

Snippet: of Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R. 2d 1395," since the check, as "an integral

McAllister Enterprises, Inc. v. McAllister Hotel, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-02-25

Citation: 219 So. 2d 114, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6157

Snippet: In Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395 (1948), and Beatty v. Flannery, Fla

Sundie v. Lindsay

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1964-07-14

Citation: 166 So. 2d 152

Snippet: [1] Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395. [2] Simpson, Contracts (1954) §§

Lewis v. Belknap

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1957-06-28

Citation: 96 So. 2d 212

Snippet: Pembroke v. Caudill, 1948, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395; Paradis v. Second Ave. Used Car

Goldfarb v. Robertson

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1955-09-23

Citation: 82 So. 2d 504

Snippet: in Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395, the provision for the forfeiture

Haas v. Crisp Realty Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1953-06-05

Citation: 65 So. 2d 765, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1343

Snippet: in Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395, impel the conclusion that under

North Beach Investments, Inc. v. Sheikewitz

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1953-01-09

Citation: 63 So. 2d 498, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1125

Snippet: in Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395, the provision for the forfeiture

Paradis v. Second Ave. Used Car Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1952-12-16

Citation: 61 So. 2d 919, 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1851

Snippet: In Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395, the subject was thoroughly treated

Stenor, Inc. v. Lester

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1951-12-11

Citation: 58 So. 2d 673, 1951 Fla. LEXIS 1045

Snippet: Pembroke v. Caudill, 1948, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R.2d 1395. The prime factor is whether the

Beatty v. Flannery

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1950-12-05

Citation: 49 So. 2d 81, 1950 Fla. LEXIS 1605

Snippet: in Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948, 37 So.2d 538, 6 A.L.R. 2d 1395, the provision for the forfeiture

Norris Et Ux. v. Eikenberry

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-10-16

Citation: 137 So. 128, 103 Fla. 104

Snippet: Ct. 235; Holgate v. Eaton, 116 U.S. 33,29 L.Ed. 538, 6 S.Ct. 224; Columbus v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 218

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Coachman

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1910-01-15

Citation: 59 Fla. 130

Snippet: Harvey v. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. Co., 74 Mo. 538, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 293. In the absence of evidence