Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 570.15 (2025)
Access to places of business and vehicles.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes: through the 2025 Regular Session (some sections already show 2026 laws)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
570.15 Access to places of business and vehicles.—
(1)(a) Any duly authorized employee of the department shall have full access at all reasonable hours to inspect:
1. All:
a. Places of business;
b. Factories;
c. Farm buildings;
d. Carriages;
e. Railroad cars;
f. Trucks;
g. Motor vehicles, except private passenger automobiles with no trailer in tow, travel trailers, camping trailers, van conversions, and motor homes as defined in s. 320.01(1)(b), or pickup trucks not carrying agricultural, horticultural, or livestock products and which have visible access to the entire cargo area, or city, county, state, or federal vehicles;
h. Truck and motor vehicle trailers; and
i. Vessels
which are used or could be used in the production, manufacture, storage, sale, or transportation within the state of any food product; any agricultural, horticultural, or livestock product; or any article or product with respect to which any authority is conferred by law on the department; and
2. All records or documents pertaining thereto.
(b) The department may examine and open any package or container of any kind containing or believed to contain any article or product which may be transported, manufactured, sold, or offered for sale in violation of the provisions of this chapter, the rules of the department, or the laws which the department enforces and may inspect the contents and take samples for analysis.
(c) If access is refused by the owner, agent, manager, or other person in charge of any premises, or by the owner, driver, operator, or other person in charge of any vehicle, the department employee may apply for, obtain, and execute a search warrant for regulatory inspection under the provisions of this section and ss. 933.20-933.30. The provisions of chapter 933 relating to probable cause do not apply to regulatory inspections under this section. Routine inspections of vehicles shall be conducted in accordance with the administrative standards, including neutral criteria, for conducting these inspections set forth by rules of the department.
(2) It is unlawful for the driver of any vehicle, other than one exempted in sub-subparagraph (1)(a)1.g. or one authorized pursuant to subsection (5), to pass any official agricultural inspection station without first stopping and submitting the vehicle for inspection. A violation of this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Every law enforcement officer is authorized to assist employees of the department in the enforcement of this section. Every law enforcement officer is authorized to stop and detain any vehicle and its driver if the driver has failed to comply with this section until an employee of the department arrives to conduct the inspection required or permitted by law. The law enforcement officer may require the driver to return with the vehicle to the agricultural inspection station where the driver failed to stop the vehicle for inspection.
(4) No civil or criminal liability shall be imposed upon any person who is authorized to enforce or assist in enforcement of the provisions of this section and who is lawfully engaged in such activity.
(5) The department shall establish by rule conditions and criteria by which nonagricultural laden vehicles may pass an agricultural inspection station without stopping for inspection.
History.—s. 1, ch. 59-54; s. 1, ch. 75-215; s. 1, ch. 78-180; s. 1, ch. 79-371; s. 1, ch. 79-587; s. 1, ch. 83-237; s. 11, ch. 93-169; s. 1, ch. 93-270; s. 3, ch. 95-141; s. 36, ch. 97-98; s. 889, ch. 97-103; s. 1, ch. 2003-181.
Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 570.15
M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd§570.15FOOD-HEALTH OR SAFETYFAIL TO STOP AT AGRICULTURE INSPECTION STATION
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases, 1975–1991 · leading case: Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980).
Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980). “§ 570.15 Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978); Eden v.”
Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1980). “The court passed upon the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977). We have jurisdiction.”
Martin v. State, 411 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1982). “This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Hamilton County which held constitutional section 570.15, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978).”
Villari v. State, 372 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “We again have before us the task of determining whether or not the state has clearly established consent to the search of a truck so as to obviate the necessity for a search warrant under § 570.”
Florida Police Benevolent Ass'n v. DEPT. OF Agric. & Consum. SERVS., 574 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1991). “§ 570.15, Fla. Stat. (1987). It also is apparent that this specific listing is intended to be exhaustive.”
Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “Although it may be constitutionally permissible for the Legislature to impose an administrative probable cause standard for a warrant, or to require no warrant at all, [2] we may not judicially create such standards.”
Roche v. State, 462 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1985). “Nonetheless, he procured a regulatory search warrant, pursuant to section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1980), and upon opening the compartment, discovered more than five hundred pounds of marijuana.”
Gryzik v. State, 380 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “§ 570.15, Fla. Stat. (1977). Moreover, the application of the above rule best serves the public interest and welfare which is the paramount factor in determining the effects of violating the constitutional prohibition which is in essence an expansion of the common law rule of…”
Stephenson v. Dept. of Agr. & Consum. Servs., 342 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1976). “2d 373 , which passes on the constitutional validity of Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1975), thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.”
Raettig v. State, 406 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “[2] Although, as noted, Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1979), has been construed as requiring the same probable cause standard applicable to searches in criminal cases, Pederson v.”
Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “1st DCA 1979), the agricultural inspection station statute, Section 570.15, is "ripe for legislative consideration.”
Turner v. State, 388 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “01(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), and therefore excluded from agricultural inspection under Section 570.15(1)(a)(7), Florida Statutes (1977).”
570.15(1)(a): 6 cases
Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980). “§ 570.15 Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978); Eden v.”
Martin v. State, 411 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1982). “This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Hamilton County which held constitutional section 570.15, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978).”
Miller v. State, 368 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Raettig v. State, 406 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “[2] Although, as noted, Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1979), has been construed as requiring the same probable cause standard applicable to searches in criminal cases, Pederson v.”
Sharpe v. State, 370 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
570.15(1)(a)(7): 1 case
Turner v. State, 388 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “01(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), and therefore excluded from agricultural inspection under Section 570.15(1)(a)(7), Florida Statutes (1977).”
570.15(1)(b): 10 cases
Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980). “§ 570.15 Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978); Eden v.”
Villari v. State, 372 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “We again have before us the task of determining whether or not the state has clearly established consent to the search of a truck so as to obviate the necessity for a search warrant under § 570.”
Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “Although it may be constitutionally permissible for the Legislature to impose an administrative probable cause standard for a warrant, or to require no warrant at all, [2] we may not judicially create such standards.”
Gonterman v. State, 358 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Rosell v. State, 433 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
570.15(1)(c): 1 case
State v. Drake, 343 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
570.15(2): 11 cases
Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980). “§ 570.15 Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978); Eden v.”
Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1980). “The court passed upon the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977). We have jurisdiction.”
Martin v. State, 411 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1982). “This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Hamilton County which held constitutional section 570.15, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978).”
Villari v. State, 372 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “We again have before us the task of determining whether or not the state has clearly established consent to the search of a truck so as to obviate the necessity for a search warrant under § 570.”
Mahla v. State, 383 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
570.15(3): 2 cases
Raettig v. State, 406 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “[2] Although, as noted, Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1979), has been construed as requiring the same probable cause standard applicable to searches in criminal cases, Pederson v.”
McDonough v. State, 428 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
570.15(l)(a): 1 case
Knoble v. State, 399 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
570.15(l)(a)(7): 1 case
Eden v. State, 370 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
570.15(l)(b): 1 case
Roche v. State, 447 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
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.