Florida Statute 812.15 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 812
THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 812.015

812.015 Retail and farm theft; transit fare evasion; mandatory fine; alternative punishment; detention and arrest; exemption from liability for false arrest; resisting arrest; penalties.—

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Antishoplifting or inventory control device” means a mechanism or other device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal from a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure, or from a protected area within such an enclosure, of specially marked or tagged merchandise. The term includes any electronic or digital imaging or any video recording or other film used for security purposes and the cash register tape or other record made of the register receipt.

(b) “Antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure” means any item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device.

(c) “Farm produce” means livestock or any item grown, produced, or manufactured by a person owning, renting, or leasing land for the purpose of growing, producing, or manufacturing items for sale or personal use, either part time or full time.

(d) “Farm theft” means the unlawful taking possession of any items that are grown or produced on land owned, rented, or leased by another person. The term includes the unlawful taking possession of equipment and associated materials used to grow or produce farm products as defined in s. 823.14(3)(e).

(e) “Farmer” means a person who is engaging in the growing or producing of farm produce, milk products, honey, eggs, or meat, either part time or full time, for personal consumption or for sale and who is the owner or lessee of the land or a person designated in writing by the owner or lessee to act as her or his agent. No person defined as a farm labor contractor pursuant to s. 450.28 shall be designated to act as an agent for purposes of this section.

(f) “Mass transit vehicle” means buses, rail cars, or fixed-guideway mover systems operated by, or under contract to, state agencies, political subdivisions of the state, or municipalities for the transportation of fare-paying passengers.

(g) “Merchandise” means any personal property, capable of manual delivery, displayed, held, or offered for retail sale by a merchant.

(h) “Merchant” means an owner or operator, or the agent, consignee, employee, lessee, or officer of an owner or operator, of any premises or apparatus used for retail purchase or sale of any merchandise.

(i) “Retail theft” means the taking possession of or carrying away of merchandise, property, money, or negotiable documents; altering or removing a label, universal product code, or price tag; transferring merchandise from one container to another; or removing a shopping cart, with intent to deprive the merchant of possession, use, benefit, or full retail value.

(j) “Social media platform” has the same meaning as provided in s. 501.2041(1).

(k) “Transit agency” means any state agency, political subdivision of the state, or municipality which operates mass transit vehicles.

(l) “Transit fare evasion” means the unlawful refusal to pay the appropriate fare for transportation upon a mass transit vehicle, or to evade the payment of such fare, or to enter any mass transit vehicle or facility by any door, passageway, or gate, except as provided for the entry of fare-paying passengers, and shall constitute petit theft as proscribed by this chapter.

(m) “Trespass” means the violation as described in s. 810.08.

(n) “Value of merchandise” means the sale price of the merchandise at the time it was stolen or otherwise removed, depriving the owner of her or his lawful right to ownership and sale of said item.

(2) Upon a second or subsequent conviction for petit theft from a merchant, farmer, or transit agency, the offender shall be punished as provided in s. 812.014(3), except that the court shall impose a fine of not less than $50 or more than $1,000. However, in lieu of such fine, the court may require the offender to perform public services designated by the court. In no event shall any such offender be required to perform fewer than the number of hours of public service necessary to satisfy the fine assessed by the court, as provided by this subsection, at the minimum wage prevailing in the state at the time of sentencing.

(3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.

(b) The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.

(c) The taking into custody and detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, if done in compliance with all the requirements of this subsection, shall not render such law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

(4) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, either on or off the premises and without warrant, any person the officer has probable cause to believe unlawfully possesses, or is unlawfully using or attempting to use or has used or attempted to use, any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure or has committed theft in a retail or wholesale establishment or on commercial or private farm lands of a farmer or transit fare evasion or trespass.

(5)(a) A merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent who takes a person into custody, as provided in subsection (3), or who causes an arrest, as provided in subsection (4), of a person for retail theft, farm theft, transit fare evasion, or trespass shall not be criminally or civilly liable for false arrest or false imprisonment when the merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent has probable cause to believe that the person committed retail theft, farm theft, transit fare evasion, or trespass.

(b) If a merchant or merchant’s employee takes a person into custody as provided in this section, or acts as a witness with respect to any person taken into custody as provided in this section, the merchant or merchant’s employee may provide his or her business address rather than home address to any investigating law enforcement officer.

(6) An individual who, while committing or after committing theft of property, transit fare evasion, or trespass, resists the reasonable effort of a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent to recover the property or cause the individual to pay the proper transit fare or vacate the transit facility which the law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent had probable cause to believe the individual had concealed or removed from its place of display or elsewhere or perpetrated a transit fare evasion or trespass commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the individual did not know, or did not have reason to know, that the person seeking to recover the property was a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent. For purposes of this section the charge of theft and the charge of resisting may be tried concurrently.

(7) It is unlawful to possess, or use or attempt to use, any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise. Any person who possesses any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any person who uses or attempts to use any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(8) Except as provided in subsection (9) or subsection (11), a person who commits retail theft commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the person:

(a) Individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, coordinates the activities of one or more individuals in committing the offense, which may occur through multiple acts of retail theft, in which the amount of each individual theft is aggregated within a 120-day period to determine the value of the property stolen and such value is $750 or more;

(b) Conspires with another person to commit retail theft with the intent to sell the stolen property for monetary or other gain, and subsequently takes or causes such property to be placed in the control of another person in exchange for consideration, in which the stolen property taken or placed within a 120-day period is aggregated to determine the value of the stolen property and such value is $750 or more;

(c) Individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, commits theft from more than one location within a 120-day period, in which the amount of each individual theft is aggregated to determine the value of the property stolen and such value is $750 or more;

(d) Acts in concert with one or more other individuals within one or more establishments to distract the merchant, merchant’s employee, or law enforcement officer in order to carry out the offense, or acts in other ways to coordinate efforts to carry out the offense and such value is $750 or more;

(e) Commits the offense through the purchase of merchandise in a package or box that contains merchandise other than, or in addition to, the merchandise purported to be contained in the package or box and such value is $750 or more;

(f) Individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, commits three or more retail thefts within a 120-day period and in committing such thefts obtains or uses 10 or more items of merchandise, and the number of items stolen during each theft is aggregated within the 120-day period to determine the total number of items stolen, regardless of the value of such merchandise, and two or more of the thefts occur at different physical merchant locations; or

(g) Acts in concert with five or more other persons within one or more establishments for the purpose of overwhelming the response of a merchant, merchant’s employee, or law enforcement officer in order to carry out the offense or avoid detection or apprehension for the offense.

(9) Except as provided in subsection (11), a person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the person:

(a) Violates subsection (8) and has previously been convicted of a violation of subsection (8) or of this subsection;

(b) Individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, coordinates the activities of one or more persons in committing the offense of retail theft, in which the amount of each individual theft within a 120-day period is aggregated to determine the value of the stolen property and such value is in excess of $3,000;

(c) Conspires with another person to commit retail theft with the intent to sell the stolen property for monetary or other gain, and subsequently takes or causes such property to be placed in control of another person in exchange for consideration, in which the stolen property taken or placed within a 120-day period is aggregated to have a value in excess of $3,000;

(d) Individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, commits three or more retail thefts within a 120-day period and in committing such thefts obtains or uses 20 or more items of merchandise, and the number of items stolen during each theft is aggregated within the 120-day period to determine the total number of items stolen, regardless of the value of such merchandise, and two or more of the thefts occur at a different physical retail merchant location; or

(e) Acts in concert with five or more other persons within one or more establishments for the purpose of overwhelming the response of a merchant, merchant’s employee, or law enforcement officer in order to carry out the offense or avoid detection or apprehension for the offense and, in the course of organizing or committing the offense, solicits the participation of another person in the offense through the use of a social media platform.

(10) If a person commits retail theft in more than one judicial circuit within a 120-day period, the value of the stolen property resulting from the thefts in each judicial circuit may be aggregated, and the person must be prosecuted by the Office of the Statewide Prosecutor in accordance with s. 16.56.

(11) A person commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if he or she violates subsection (8) or subsection (9) and:

(a) Has two or more previous convictions of violations of either or both of those subsections; or

(b) Possesses a firearm during the commission of such offense.

(12) A court must order a person convicted of violating this section to pay restitution, which must include the value of merchandise that was damaged or stolen and the cost of repairing or replacing any other property that was damaged in the course of committing the offense.

(13) The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) shall perform a study every 5 years to determine the appropriateness of the threshold amounts included in this section. The study’s scope must include, but need not be limited to, the crime trends related to theft offenses, the theft threshold amounts of other states in effect at the time of the study, the fiscal impact of any modifications to this state’s threshold amounts, and the effect on economic factors, such as inflation. The study must include options for amending the threshold amounts if the study finds that such amounts are inconsistent with current trends. In conducting the study, OPPAGA shall consult with the Office of Economic and Demographic Research in addition to other interested entities. OPPAGA shall submit a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by September 1 of every 5th year.

History.—s. 2, ch. 78-348; s. 177, ch. 79-164; s. 1, ch. 80-379; s. 1, ch. 81-108; s. 1, ch. 81-163; s. 165, ch. 83-216; s. 2, ch. 86-161; s. 1, ch. 88-325; s. 40, ch. 91-110; s. 190, ch. 91-224; s. 2, ch. 92-79; s. 11, ch. 95-184; s. 1, ch. 96-366; s. 1820, ch. 97-102; s. 33, ch. 97-280; s. 3, ch. 2001-115; s. 2, ch. 2007-177; s. 63, ch. 2011-206; s. 18, ch. 2012-83; s. 37, ch. 2019-167; s. 5, ch. 2021-7; s. 64, ch. 2022-4; s. 1, ch. 2022-192; s. 2, ch. 2024-69.

F.S. 812.015 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.015 on CourtListener

Amendments to 812.015

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 812.015

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

S812.015 2 - SHOPLIFTING - REMOVED - M: F

S812.015 2 - LARC - REMOVED - M: F

S812.015 2 - LARC - REMOVED - F: T

S812.015 6 - RESIST OFFICER - REVISED. SEE REC # 7005 - M: F

S812.015 6 - CRIMES AGAINST PERSON - REVISED. SEE REC # 7005 - M: F

S812.015 6 - LARC - RESIST ARREST COMM THEFT RESIST RECOV OF PROP - M: F

S812.015 7 - LARC - USE ANTI-SHOPLIFTING DEVICE - F: T

S812.015 7 - LARC - POSSESS ANTI-SHOPLIFTING DEVICE - F: T

S812.015 8 - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC #s 6006 6007 6008 6009 - F: T

S812.015 8a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8913 - F: T

S812.015 8a - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ OR COORDINATE W OTHERS - F: T

S812.015 8a - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ OR COORD W OTHERS PREV CONV - F: S

S812.015 8b - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8776 - F: T

S812.015 8b - LARC - RET THEFT CONSPIR SELL STOL PROP 750 DOL MORE - F: T

S812.015 8b - LARC - RETAIL THEFT SELL STOLEN PROP $750+ PREV CONV - F: S

S812.015 8c - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8777 - F: T

S812.015 8c - LARC - RETAIL THEFT 750 MORE DOLS MULTIPLE LOCATIONS - F: T

S812.015 8c - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ MULTIPLE LOCATION PREV CONV - F: S

S812.015 8d - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8778 - F: T

S812.015 8d - LARC - RETAIL THEFT 750 MORE DOLS OTHERS DISTRACT - F: T

S812.015 8d - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ OTHER DISTRACT PREV CONV - F: S

S812.015 8e - LARC - RETAIL THEFT 750 MORE DOLS SWITCH CONTENTS - F: T

S812.015 8e - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ SWITCH CONTENTS PREV CONV - F: S

S812.015 8f - LARC - MULTIPLE THEFTS WI SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD - F: T

S812.015 8f - LARC - MULTIPLE THEFT WI SPECIFIED TIME PER PREV CONV - F: S

S812.015 9 - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC#6401 - F: S

S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8730 - F: S

S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9559 - F: S

S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9560 - F: S

S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9561 - F: S

S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9562 - F: S

S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9563 - F: S

S812.015 9b - LARC - COORDINATE OTHERS RETAIL THEFT OVER 3K DOLS - F: S

S812.015 9c - LARC - RETAIL THEFT CONSPR SELL EXCESS 3K DOL - F: S

S812.015 9d - LARC - MULTIPLE THEFTS WI TIME PERIOD - F: S

Cases Citing Statute 812.015

Total Results: 81

Heggs v. State

759 So. 2d 620, 2000 WL 178052

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 2000 | Docket: 1421324

Cited 311 times | Published

amends the retail and farm theft statute (section 812.015) to reflect the changes in the theft statute;

Marlene Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney General

432 F.3d 1346, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28029

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 19, 2005 | Docket: 1273109

Cited 111 times | Published

of resisting a merchant under Florida Statutes § 812.015(6). The 2001 Information charging Jaggernauth

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson

472 So. 2d 722, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 338, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3503

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1985 | Docket: 1794226

Cited 33 times | Published

award of punitive damages. In the enactment of section 812.015, Florida Statutes, Florida has recognized that

Weissman v. K-Mart Corp.

396 So. 2d 1164

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 1981 | Docket: 387413

Cited 32 times | Published

officers who comply with the requirements of Section 812.015(3), Florida Statutes (1979), are not civilly

Royal v. State

490 So. 2d 44, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 274

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1986 | Docket: 1489649

Cited 31 times | Published

or a benefit therefrom." (Emphasis added.) Section 812.015, which defines retail theft as "the taking

Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc.

387 So. 2d 377

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1980 | Docket: 1649430

Cited 21 times | Published

021" when the statute cited should have been F.S. 812.015. The second defect was that the complaint had

Rivers v. Dillards Dept. Store, Inc.

698 So. 2d 1328, 1997 WL 564201

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 1997 | Docket: 306761

Cited 18 times | Published

illegal activity on the day in question. Thus section 812.015, Florida Statutes, did not provide a basis

Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.

941 F. Supp. 1567, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14792, 1996 WL 566888

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 2, 1996 | Docket: 2254170

Cited 17 times | Published

¶ 75) alleges that Miller violated Fla. Stat. § 812.015(1) instead of Section 812.014(1). This must be

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01

35 So. 3d 666, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 149, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 302

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2010 | Docket: 1646266

Cited 14 times | Published

restraint under stated circumstances, e.g., F.S. 812.015, 901.15, 901.151 (2006). 407.9 BURDEN OF PROOF

Stuckey v. State

972 So. 2d 918, 2007 WL 4269024

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 2007 | Docket: 1650608

Cited 13 times | Published

commits a theft of the merchant's property. See § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (2004); see also Lane v. State

Rodriguez v. State

29 So. 3d 310, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11580, 2009 WL 2514168

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 2009 | Docket: 1134209

Cited 9 times | Published

only of petit theft based on probable cause. See § 812.015(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). Similarly, an officer

Lane v. State

867 So. 2d 539, 2004 WL 358112

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 2004 | Docket: 1722423

Cited 8 times | Published

to recover stolen property in violation of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2002), arguing that the

In Re Standard Jury Inst. in Crim. Cases-Report 2007-01

965 So. 2d 811, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 530, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1535, 2007 WL 2438370

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 2007 | Docket: 1509151

Cited 6 times | Published

"developmental" for "fundamental." Finally, section 812.15, Florida Statutes (2006), pertaining to the

Bernard v. State

859 So. 2d 560, 2003 WL 22734841

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2003 | Docket: 1684347

Cited 6 times | Published

stolen cable box. Bernard was not charged under section 812.15, Florida Statutes (2002), which makes the unauthorized

Johnson v. State

855 So. 2d 1157, 2003 WL 22188040

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 2003 | Docket: 1752649

Cited 6 times | Published

included offense of resisting a merchant, section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1997), a first degree

Emshwiller v. State

462 So. 2d 457, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 34

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 10, 1985 | Docket: 1509880

Cited 6 times | Published

is also contained in the retail theft statute. § 812.015(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1981). The jury found petitioner

Peterson v. State

24 So. 3d 686, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19772, 2009 WL 4877693

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 2009 | Docket: 1152636

Cited 5 times | Published

misdemeanor offense of resisting a merchant. See § 812.015(6). Both the State's case and Peterson's theory

Epps v. State

728 So. 2d 761, 1999 WL 69673

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1999 | Docket: 1673888

Cited 5 times | Published

retail purchase or sale of any merchandise." § 812.015(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). The evidence clearly

Mediaone of Delaware, Inc. v. E & a Beepers & Cellulars

43 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22203, 1998 WL 1032571

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 1998 | Docket: 1890055

Cited 5 times | Published

§§ 553 and 605 of the Communications Act, and § 812.15(4)(b)(1) of the Florida Statutes. Upon information

Canto v. JB Ivey and Co.

595 So. 2d 1025, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2287, 1992 WL 42456

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 1992 | Docket: 1709097

Cited 5 times | Published

liability for false imprisonment pursuant to Section 812.015, Florida Statutes (1989). Subsection (3)(a)

Royal v. State

452 So. 2d 1098

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 1984 | Docket: 280071

Cited 5 times | Published

statutory definition of "retail theft" in section 812.015(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981), which certainly

Hughes v. State

400 So. 2d 533

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 1981 | Docket: 1676895

Cited 5 times | Published

potential applicability of the lesser penalty of § 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978), governing battery

Duval v. State

688 So. 2d 1002, 1997 WL 86057

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 1997 | Docket: 1508288

Cited 4 times | Published

charge of resisting a merchant, pursuant to section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1993), as a lesser included

McCarthren v. State

635 So. 2d 1005, 1994 WL 140751

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 1994 | Docket: 1352826

Cited 4 times | Published

§ 812.014(2)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] The Phoenix Program

State v. Jones

461 So. 2d 97

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1984 | Docket: 464590

Cited 4 times | Published

section 901.34, Florida Statutes (1975) [here section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981)], a policelike

Emshwiller v. State

443 So. 2d 343

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1983 | Docket: 1458937

Cited 4 times | Published

"retail theft" of merchandise, as defined in section 812.015, Florida Statutes (1981), where value is alleged

Cenatis v. State

120 So. 3d 41, 2013 WL 3811766, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11593

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 2013 | Docket: 60234116

Cited 3 times | Published

antishoplifting device countermeasure is prohibited by section 812.015(7), Florida Statutes (2010): It is unlawful

Stewart v. State

790 So. 2d 440, 2000 WL 294423

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 21, 2000 | Docket: 1734513

Cited 3 times | Published

included offense of resisting a merchant. See § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (1997). I concur in the judgment

Jack Eckerd Corp. v. Smith

558 So. 2d 1060, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1570, 1990 WL 25945

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 1990 | Docket: 1726311

Cited 3 times | Published

mistaken effort to comply with the spirit of section 812.015(3), Florida Statutes (1985), which gives a

Jacqueline E. Morris v. Albertson's, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

705 F.2d 406, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28471

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 28, 1983 | Docket: 379767

Cited 3 times | Published

it was immune from suit under Florida statute § 812.015. That provision stipulates that: (3)(a) a

Rimondi v. State

89 So. 3d 1059, 2012 WL 2010866, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9074

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2012 | Docket: 60308503

Cited 2 times | Published

theft in concert with others in violation of section 812.015(8)(a). Rimondi raises two issues on appeal;

Polite v. State

933 So. 2d 587, 2006 WL 1627460

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 2006 | Docket: 1712080

Cited 2 times | Published

Stat. (2005)(fleeing or eluding officer);[9] § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (2005)(resisting officer's recovery

Stuckey v. State

907 So. 2d 1208, 2005 WL 1412085

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2005 | Docket: 459354

Cited 2 times | Published

applicable to the present case, is described in section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2004), as follows: (6)

CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Kimtron, Inc.

47 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7118, 1999 WL 304613

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 1999 | Docket: 2391634

Cited 2 times | Published

S.C. §§ 553(a)(1) and 605(e)(4), and FlaStat. § 812.15. CSC also seeks to impose a constructive trust

Hood v. Zayre Corp.

529 So. 2d 1197, 1988 WL 73947

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 1988 | Docket: 432501

Cited 2 times | Published

Davis against her will. Zayre's answer raised section 812.015, Florida Statutes (1985) (immunity for merchants)

Pearce v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co.

476 So. 2d 750, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 9, 1985 | Docket: 1277502

Cited 2 times | Published

employees and law enforcement authorities by section 812.015(3), Florida Statutes, may help us determine

SYMONE JUSTINE BENT v. STATE OF FLORIDA

257 So. 3d 501

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 2018 | Docket: 8074519

Cited 1 times | Published

presence? Because the legislature enacted section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that

State of Florida v. Thomas Marvin Lord

150 So. 3d 260

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2014 | Docket: 1443005

Cited 1 times | Published

officers did not have the authority under section 812.015 to arrest defendants. See State v. Daniels

F.T. v. State

146 So. 3d 1270, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14390, 2014 WL 4628512

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2014 | Docket: 60242838

Cited 1 times | Published

and more specific statutory treatment under section 812.015. Under the general theft provisions, “value”

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2011-03

95 So. 3d 868, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 352, 2012 WL 2848895, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 961

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 17, 2012 | Docket: 60311327

Cited 1 times | Published

sought to track the statutory language of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides

Snell v. State

932 So. 2d 293, 2005 WL 3179890

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2005 | Docket: 1684650

Cited 1 times | Published

pockets, in violation of section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). Section 812.015(3)(a) provides, in

Burton v. State

844 So. 2d 721, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6732, 2003 WL 21032225

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 2003 | Docket: 64822741

Cited 1 times | Published

“reasonable effort .. n to recover the property.” § 812.015(6). We disagree. Ms. Lane testified that she came

Schaeffer v. State

779 So. 2d 485, 2000 WL 1714481

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2000 | Docket: 420332

Cited 1 times | Published

not used for a self-defense purpose. [4] Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1997), makes it a first

State v. Blunt

744 So. 2d 1258, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15623, 1999 WL 1062457

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 1999 | Docket: 64792263

Cited 1 times | Published

antishoplifting or inventory control device.” § 812.015(1)©, Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added).1 *1259In

Maldanado v. State

691 So. 2d 61, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3262, 1997 WL 163607

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 1997 | Docket: 64772289

Cited 1 times | Published

offense of resisting a merchant pursuant to section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1995), as a lesser-included

Lamb v. State

679 So. 2d 59, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9249, 1996 WL 496990

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 1996 | Docket: 64767109

Cited 1 times | Published

merchant. Pursuant to the 1992 amendment of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes, the charge of resisting

Sanders v. State

654 So. 2d 1279, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5411, 1995 WL 302312

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 1995 | Docket: 64756379

Cited 1 times | Published

version of the statute interpreted therein, section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1991), previously required

Smith v. State

566 So. 2d 57, 1990 WL 125099

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 1990 | Docket: 547525

Cited 1 times | Published

NOTES [1] § 812.014, Fla. Stat. (1987). [2] § 812.015, Fla. Stat. (1987). [3] § 843.02, Fla. Stat.

Atmore v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2025 | Docket: 71097804

Published

included offense of resisting a merchant under section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2024). For the reasons

Raulerson v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2025 | Docket: 69996619

Published

the person is trespassing on school property); § 812.015(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (authorizing “a merchant, a

Malik Mocombe v. The State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2024 | Docket: 68249784

Published

for a retail establishment, in violation of section 812.015(7), Florida Statutes (2022). Because

Raymond Anthony Lee v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2024 | Docket: 68249798

Published

convenience store. We affirm, concluding that section 812.015(4), Florida Statutes (2022), gave the officers

ALEXANDER MARTINEZ-RIVERO v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 3, 2021 | Docket: 59053880

Published

antishoplifting device countermeasure in violation of section 812.015(7), Florida Statutes. On appeal, Martinez-Rivero

Advisory Opinion to the Governor Re: Implementation of Amendment 4, The Voting Restoration Amendment

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 2020 | Docket: 16761642

Published

meaning of “all terms of sentence.” See, e.g., § 812.15(7), Fla. Stat. (2019) (“The court shall, in addition

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2017-04

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2017 | Docket: 6233352

Published

properly instructs upon the offense defined under section 812.015, Florida Statutes (2017) (Retail and farm

McClover v. State

217 So. 3d 96, 2017 WL 1399821, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5358

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2017 | Docket: 60266103

Published

commit retail theft is retail theft. Id. (citing § 812.015(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (2012)). We also confirmed that

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT NO. 2014-07

163 So. 3d 478, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 221, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 927, 2015 WL 1932145

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2015 | Docket: 2653648

Published

5 RESISTING RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Resisting

F.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2014 | Docket: 1255780

Published

and more specific statutory treatment under section 812.015. Under the general theft provisions

McClover v. State

125 So. 3d 926, 2013 WL 1980172, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7870

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 15, 2013 | Docket: 60236120

Published

Convicted of felony retail theft in violation of section 812.015(8)(a), Florida Statutes, Toccara McClover appeals

Milian v. State

92 So. 3d 304, 2012 WL 2913223, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11693

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 18, 2012 | Docket: 60310214

Published

theft in concert with others in violation of section 812.015(8)(a). For the reasons set forth in *305Ms

C.G. v. State

981 So. 2d 1224, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 6939

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 2008 | Docket: 64854866

Published

appellant guilty of evasion of transit fare under section 812.015(l)(j), Florida Statutes, because the state

CG v. State

981 So. 2d 1224, 2008 WL 1968316

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 2008 | Docket: 1515687

Published

appellant guilty of evasion of transit fare under section 812.015(1)(j), Florida Statutes, because the state

Henry v. State

864 So. 2d 560, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 824, 2004 WL 258565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 2004 | Docket: 64827655

Published

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 812.015(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002); Scott v. State, 519 So.2d 734 (Fla. 3d

Williams v. State

745 So. 2d 465, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15149, 1999 WL 1036513

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 1999 | Docket: 64792443

Published

resisting a retail merchant in violation of section 812.015(6). We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Smith v. State

743 So. 2d 1141, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13175, 1999 WL 790717

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 1999 | Docket: 64791902

Published

basically, that I instruct the jury that Florida Statute 812.015 provides: ... “A Merchant who has probable

Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. v. E & A Beepers Corp.

188 F.R.D. 662, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15111, 1999 WL 756576

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 1999 | Docket: 66010437

Published

605(a) and 605(e)(4) in Count II] and state [Section 812.15 of the Florida Statutes in Count III] law.

J.B. v. State

715 So. 2d 1144, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10497

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 21, 1998 | Docket: 64782177

Published

(1997) and resisting merchandise recovery, section 812.015(g), Florida Statutes (1997). Because the latter

JB v. State

715 So. 2d 1144, 1998 WL 518564

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 21, 1998 | Docket: 2575066

Published

(1997) and resisting merchandise recovery, section 812.015(g), Florida Statutes (1997). Because the latter

McRae v. State

679 So. 2d 14, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7857, 1996 WL 417532

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 1996 | Docket: 64767080

Published

Section 784.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). . Section 812.015, Fla.Stat. (1993). . In Young v. State, 663

Starks v. State

637 So. 2d 371, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5305

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 1994 | Docket: 64748544

Published

misdemeanor of resisting a merchant in violation of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1991). HALL, A.C.J.,

Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

613 So. 2d 1307, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 113, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 172, 1993 WL 32299

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 1993 | Docket: 64694361

Published

Stat.); ch. 92-155, § 3, Laws of Fla. (creating § 812.15, Fla.Stat., regarding unauthorized reception of

Coffie v. State

562 So. 2d 423, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4290, 1990 WL 80798

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 1990 | Docket: 64650962

Published

with resisting a merchant in violation of section 812.-015(6), Florida Statutes (1985). A jury found

K.C. v. State

524 So. 2d 658, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 300, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 550, 1988 WL 43386

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1988 | Docket: 64634617

Published

to recover the merchandise, in violation of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides

Tironi v. Pantry Pride Enterprises, Inc.

519 So. 2d 55, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 250, 1988 WL 4533

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1988 | Docket: 64632191

Published

2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); § 812.015(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985); § 812.015(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985).

K.C. v. State

507 So. 2d 769, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1341, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8454

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 1987 | Docket: 64627375

Published

employees to recover the candy, in violation of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983).1 He was adjudicated

In re W.L.B.

502 So. 2d 50, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 446, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6622

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1987 | Docket: 64624873

Published

contendere to a charge of resisting a merchant, Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1985), reserving the

In Interest of JLP

490 So. 2d 85, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 189, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5931

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 15, 1986 | Docket: 2567813

Published

are compelled to agree with appellant that section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983), as written requires

Pollock v. Albertson's, Inc.

458 So. 2d 74, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2295, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15765

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1984 | Docket: 64607676

Published

motion for summary judgment on the basis of section 812.015(3-5), Florida Statutes (1981), which permits

Tobe v. State

435 So. 2d 401, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20053

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 1983 | Docket: 64598540

Published

value contained in the retail theft statute, section 812.015(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1981). Under the retail

Jones v. State

434 So. 2d 337, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20916

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1983 | Docket: 64598200

Published

store detective for shoplifting pursuant to Section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981) and accused

K. M. S. v. STATE

402 So. 2d 593, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20932

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 1981 | Docket: 64584694

Published

merchant) of the juvenile petition was in error. Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1979), under which appellant