552.101

Possession without license prohibited; exceptions.

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

552.101 Possession without license prohibited; exceptions.—It is unlawful for any person to possess an explosive unless he or she is the holder of a current, valid license or permit, as above provided, and possesses such explosive for the purpose covered by the license or permit held. However, there is excepted from this provision common, contract, and private carriers, as described in s. 552.12, possessed of an explosive in connection with transportation of the same in the ordinary course of their business.

History.—s. 3, ch. 29944, 1955; s. 4, ch. 59-83; s. 7, ch. 77-84; s. 794, ch. 97-103.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2022 · leading case: Adams v. State

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Adams v. State (1979) fladistctapp · cites it 3× “*637 Appellant bases his point on the statute defining the crime, which is Section 552.101, Florida Statutes (1977), reading as follows: It is unlawful for any person to possess an explosive unless he is the holder of a current, valid license or permit, as above provided, and…”

Victer v. State (1965) fla · cites it 3× “, and in a second count with possession of explosives without a license in violation of § 552.101, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. A jury trial resulted in appellant’s acquittal on the first count and his conviction on the second count.”

State v. Astore (1972) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “2d 544 , where the appellant was convicted of the possession of explosives without a license in violation of F.S. § 552.101, F.S.A. The supreme court determined that the statute was constitutional as applied to appellant under the facts therein, adding that: ".”

State v. Babun (1970) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “The State appeals an order dismissing an information charging the appellees with a violation of § 552.101, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. It is apparent that the trial court concluded that before the State could prosecute the *172 appellees for an alleged violation of the statute [making it…”

Norris v. State (1971) fladistctapp “There is, therefore, no indication as to whether the verdict of the jury was predicated upon a finding that such possession was “with the intent to harm life, limb or property” as distinguished from a possession which was a “knowing violation” as set forth in Section 552.”

Victer v. State (1964) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “, and in a second count with possession of explosives without a license, condemned by § 552.101, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. A jury trial resulted in his acquittal on the first count and in his conviction on the second count.”

Andrews v. State (1967) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “Appellant appeals from a judgment and sentence pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of knowingly having possession of an explosive, in violation of § 552.101 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Appellant first urges reversal on the ground that certain remarks made by the prosecuting…”

Blanco v. Samuel (2022) flsd “3 and provides services in a private home pursuant to § 552.101; and (2) resides on his or her employer’s premises on a permanent basis or for extended periods of time.”

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.