Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 562.45 (2025)
Penalties for violating Beverage Law; local ordinances; prohibiting regulation of certain activities or business transactions; requiring nondiscriminatory treatment; providing exceptions.
✓ 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
562.45 Penalties for violating Beverage Law; local ordinances; prohibiting regulation of certain activities or business transactions; requiring nondiscriminatory treatment; providing exceptions.—
(1) Any person willfully and knowingly making any false entries in any records required under the Beverage Law or willfully violating any of the provisions of the Beverage Law, concerning the excise tax herein provided for shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of the Beverage Law, and any person who violates any provision of the Beverage Law for which no penalty has been provided shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083; provided, that any person who shall have been convicted of a violation of any provision of the Beverage Law and shall thereafter be convicted of a further violation of the Beverage Law, shall, upon conviction of said further offense, be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2)(a) Nothing contained in the Beverage Law may be construed to affect or impair the power or right of any county or incorporated municipality of the state to enact ordinances regulating the hours of business and location of place of business, and prescribing sanitary regulations therefor, of any licensee under the Beverage Law within the county or corporate limits of such municipality. However, except for premises licensed on or before July 1, 1999, and except for locations licensed as restaurants, which derive at least 51 percent of their gross revenues from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages, pursuant to chapter 509, a location for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages may not be located within 500 feet of the real property that comprises a public or private elementary school, middle school, or secondary school unless the county or municipality approves the location as promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community under proceedings as provided in s. 125.66(5), for counties, and s. 166.041(3)(c), for municipalities. This restriction may not, however, be construed to prohibit the issuance of temporary permits to certain nonprofit organizations as provided for in s. 561.422. The division may not issue a change in the series of a license or approve a change of a licensee’s location unless the licensee provides documentation of proper zoning from the appropriate county or municipal zoning authorities.
(b) Nothing in the Beverage Law shall be construed to affect or impair the power or right of any county or incorporated municipality of the state to enact ordinances regulating the type of entertainment and conduct permitted in any establishment licensed under the Beverage Law to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or any bottle club licensed under s. 561.14, which is located within such county or municipality.
(c) A county or municipality may not enact any ordinance that regulates or prohibits those activities or business transactions of a licensee regulated by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco under the Beverage Law. Except as otherwise provided in the Beverage Law, a local government, when enacting ordinances designed to promote and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public, shall treat a licensee in a nondiscriminatory manner and in a manner that is consistent with the manner of treatment of any other lawful business transacted in this state. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or impair the enactment or enforcement by a county or municipality of any zoning, land development or comprehensive plan regulation or other ordinance authorized under ss. 1, 2, and 5, Art. VIII of the State Constitution.
History.—s. 15, ch. 16774, 1935; s. 3, ch. 19301, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 4151(240), 7648(6); s. 4, ch. 29964, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-327; s. 573, ch. 71-136; s. 2, ch. 72-230; s. 1, ch. 87-365; s. 24, ch. 91-60; s. 4, ch. 97-165; s. 2, ch. 99-156; s. 128, ch. 2014-17; s. 13, ch. 2023-309.
Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 562.45
M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd§562.45(1)FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENTFALSE ENTRY ON BEVERAGE RECORD
§562.45(1)LIQUOR TAXVIOLATION BEVERAGE LAW TAX
§562.45(1)PUBLIC ORDER CRIMESOTHER VIOLATION BEVERAGE LAW SUBSQ OFF
§562.45(1)PUBLIC ORDER CRIMESOTHER VIOLATION BEVERAGE LAW 1ST VIOL
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases, 1943–2002 · leading case: Orange Cnty. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 823 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2002).
Orange Cnty. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 823 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2002). “Applying this appropriate standard of review, we conclude that here, the trial court correctly determined that the subject ordinance was within constitutional parameters, as reflected in its final judgment: The right of the County to regulate locations that sell alcoholic…”
City of Miami Springs v. JJT, INC., 437 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). “[4] We therefore need not decide whether the reading urged by the City, that is, that the ordinance comes within the express provision of the Beverage Act, see § 562.45(2), Fla. Stat. (1981), permitting local control over hours of operation, is appropriate.”
Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs v. Dexterhouse, 348 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). “Section 562.45(2), Florida Statutes (1975).”
Hillsborough Cnty. v. FLORIDA REST. ASS'N, 603 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). “14 (hours of operation in absence of county or municipal ordinance); § 562.45(2)(a) (local regulation of hours and location of operation, sanitary regulations); § 562.”
Vill. Saloon v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev., 463 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “[2] At least since 1968, ordinances of the town of Orange Park have regulated such hours of sale within its municipal limits pursuant to that exception and section 562.45(2), Florida Statutes. The ordinance adopted in 1968 prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages between the…”
Die Burg, Inc. v. Underhill, 465 F. Supp. 1176 (M.D. Fla. 1979). “*1178 Plaintiff argues that the conduct of employees or patrons on the premises of a licensed establishment is not within the scope of the licensing authority delegated to the City of Fort Myers by the State.”
Rivergate Rest. Corp. v. METRO. DADE CTY., 369 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). “Dade County lacks the powers of an `incorporated municipality' under Section 562.45(2), Florida Statutes, "2. The State has pre-empted the regulation of liquor licensees, and "3.”
Silver Rose Entertain. v. Clay Cnty., 646 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “(1993), and provides: Nothing contained in the Beverage Law shall be construed to affect or impair the *249 power or right of any county or incorporated municipality of the state to enact ordinances regulating the hours of business .”
State v. Curtis, 152 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). “” This statute is one of numerous statutes providing for enhanced punishment upon a second conviction of related offenses.”
219 South Atl. Boulevard Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 239 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2002). “Section 562.45(2) (c) Defendant City of Fort Lauderdale asks the Court to grant summary judgment as to Count VII, which alleges discriminatory treatment of a licensee under state beverage laws.”
Johnson v. State, 395 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). “Section 562.45(1), the penalty statute covering a violation of section 562.”
State v. Redner, 425 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “Section 562.45(2), Florida Statutes (1981), reads as follows: Nothing in the Beverage Law contained shall be construed to affect or impair the power or right of any incorporated municipality of the state hereafter to enact ordinances regulating the hours of business and location…”
— 562.45(1) — 4 cases
Johnson v. State, 395 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). “Section 562.45(1), the penalty statute covering a violation of section 562.”
Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 941 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996).
Spadaro v. State, 332 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
McPhadder v. State, 450 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
— 562.45(2) — 9 cases
City of Miami Springs v. JJT, INC., 437 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). “[4] We therefore need not decide whether the reading urged by the City, that is, that the ordinance comes within the express provision of the Beverage Act, see § 562.45(2), Fla. Stat. (1981), permitting local control over hours of operation, is appropriate.”
Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs v. Dexterhouse, 348 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). “Section 562.45(2), Florida Statutes (1975).”
Vill. Saloon v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev., 463 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “[2] At least since 1968, ordinances of the town of Orange Park have regulated such hours of sale within its municipal limits pursuant to that exception and section 562.45(2), Florida Statutes. The ordinance adopted in 1968 prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages between the…”
Orange Cnty. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 823 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2002). “Applying this appropriate standard of review, we conclude that here, the trial court correctly determined that the subject ordinance was within constitutional parameters, as reflected in its final judgment: The right of the County to regulate locations that sell alcoholic…”
Rivergate Rest. Corp. v. METRO. DADE CTY., 369 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). “Dade County lacks the powers of an `incorporated municipality' under Section 562.45(2), Florida Statutes, "2. The State has pre-empted the regulation of liquor licensees, and "3.”
— 562.45(2)(a) — 3 cases
Orange Cnty. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 823 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2002). “Applying this appropriate standard of review, we conclude that here, the trial court correctly determined that the subject ordinance was within constitutional parameters, as reflected in its final judgment: The right of the County to regulate locations that sell alcoholic…”
Silver Rose Entertain. v. Clay Cnty., 646 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “(1993), and provides: Nothing contained in the Beverage Law shall be construed to affect or impair the *249 power or right of any county or incorporated municipality of the state to enact ordinances regulating the hours of business .”
Hillsborough Cnty. v. FLORIDA REST. ASS'N, 603 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). “14 (hours of operation in absence of county or municipal ordinance); § 562.45(2)(a) (local regulation of hours and location of operation, sanitary regulations); § 562.”
— 562.45(2)(b) — 1 case
Hillsborough Cnty. v. FLORIDA REST. ASS'N, 603 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). “14 (hours of operation in absence of county or municipal ordinance); § 562.45(2)(a) (local regulation of hours and location of operation, sanitary regulations); § 562.”
— 562.45(2)(c) — 1 case
219 South Atl. Boulevard Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 239 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2002). “Section 562.45(2) (c) Defendant City of Fort Lauderdale asks the Court to grant summary judgment as to Count VII, which alleges discriminatory treatment of a licensee under state beverage laws.”
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.