812.022

Evidence of theft or dealing in stolen property.

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

812.022 Evidence of theft or dealing in stolen property.—

(1) Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current with respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspects, in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within 72 hours of the termination of the leasing agreement, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that such property was obtained or is now used with intent to commit theft.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (5), proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

(3) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

(4) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen.

(5) Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses stolen property upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed gives rise to an inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen.

(a) If the name and phone number are for a business that rents property, the dealer avoids the inference by contacting such business, prior to accepting the property, to verify that the property was not stolen from such business. If the name and phone number are not for a business that rents property, the dealer avoids the inference by contacting the local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the dealer is located, prior to accepting the property, to verify that the property has not been reported stolen. An accurate written record, which contains the number called, the date and time of such call, and the name and place of employment of the person who verified that the property was not stolen, is sufficient evidence to avoid the inference pursuant to this subsection.

(b) This subsection does not apply to:

1. Persons, entities, or transactions exempt from chapter 538.

2. Used sports equipment that does not contain a serial number, printed or recorded materials, computer software, or videos or video games.

3. A dealer who implements, in a continuous and consistent manner, a program for identification and return of stolen property that meets the following criteria:

a. When a dealer is offered property for pawn or purchase that contains conspicuous identifying information that includes a name and phone number, or a dealer is offered property for pawn or purchase that contains ownership information that is affixed to the property pursuant to a written agreement with a business entity or group of associated business entities, the dealer will promptly contact the individual or company whose name is affixed to the property by phone to confirm that the property has not been stolen. If the individual or business contacted indicates that the property has been stolen, the dealer shall not accept the property.

b. If the dealer is unable to verify whether the property is stolen from the individual or business, and if the dealer accepts the property that is later determined to have been stolen, the dealer will voluntarily return the property at no cost and without the necessity of a replevin action, if the property owner files the appropriate theft reports with law enforcement and enters into an agreement with the dealer to actively participate in the prosecution of the person or persons who perpetrated the crime.

c. If a dealer is required by law to complete and submit a transaction form to law enforcement, the dealer shall include all conspicuously displayed ownership information on the transaction form.

(6) Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen.

History.—s. 8, ch. 77-342; s. 1, ch. 2004-341; s. 1, ch. 2006-107.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 127 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Standard Jury Inst. in Cr. Cases No. 2006-2

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Standard Jury Inst. in Cr. Cases No. 2006-2 (2007) fla · cites it 28× “Because it appears that the Committee intended to incorporate all inferences created by section 812.022, Florida Statutes, relating to dealing in stolen property, instructions 14.”

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04 (2016) fla · cites it 33× “2d 310 ], by adding-the inferences in § 812.022(2-)(6)r -F-la. Stat, 2013 [ 121 So.”

Walker v. State (2005) fla · cites it 12× “, § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. (2003) (providing that when a person uses false identification to lease personal property, this gives rise to an inference that the person used or will use the property to commit a theft, unless satisfactorily explained); § 812.”

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2012-01 (2013) fla · cites it 12× “§ 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspect in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within…”

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-No. 2007-11 (2008) fla · cites it 13× “§ 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspect in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within…”

Jackson v. State (1999) fladistctapp · cites it 13× “As part of the instruction to the jury, the trial court read that part of the standard instruction based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1997) which provides: Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference…”

Bowen v. Bowen (1985) fla · cites it 3× “We reject the argument that this presumption improperly infringes upon a criminal contempt defendant's fifth amendment privilege. See State v.”

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—INSTRUCTION 14.2 (2014) fla · cites it 11× “§ 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.”

C.T. v. State (2017) fladistctapp · cites it 9× “was entirely circumstantial, the State relied upon the statutory inference of guilty knowledge provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016), which states that "proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference…”

Brown v. State (1983) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “The Florida Supreme Court, in sustaining the constitutionality of Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1977), [1] reasoned that "[s]ince there [was] a rational connection between the fact proven (the defendant possessed stolen goods) and the fact presumed (the defendant knew…”

Bronson v. State (2006) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “contends that the State's lack of evidence is not cured by the inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2003).”

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Instruction 14.2 (2013) fla · cites it 10× “§ 812.022(4.), Fla. Stat. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the…”

Show all 127 citing cases →

— 812.022(1) — 11 cases

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04 (2016) fla “2d 310 ], by adding-the inferences in § 812.022(2-)(6)r -F-la. Stat, 2013 [ 121 So.”

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2012-01 (2013) fla “§ 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspect in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within…”

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-No. 2007-11 (2008) fla “§ 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspect in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within…”

Walker v. State (2005) fla “, § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. (2003) (providing that when a person uses false identification to lease personal property, this gives rise to an inference that the person used or will use the property to commit a theft, unless satisfactorily explained); § 812.”

In Re Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases (2005) fla

— 812.022(2) — 111 cases

Jackson v. State (1999) fladistctapp “As part of the instruction to the jury, the trial court read that part of the standard instruction based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1997) which provides: Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference…”

Standard Jury Inst. in Cr. Cases No. 2006-2 (2007) fla “Because it appears that the Committee intended to incorporate all inferences created by section 812.022, Florida Statutes, relating to dealing in stolen property, instructions 14.”

Bowen v. Bowen (1985) fla “We reject the argument that this presumption improperly infringes upon a criminal contempt defendant's fifth amendment privilege. See State v.”

C.T. v. State (2017) fladistctapp “was entirely circumstantial, the State relied upon the statutory inference of guilty knowledge provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016), which states that "proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference…”

— 812.022(2)(6) — 1 case

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04 (2016) fla “2d 310 ], by adding-the inferences in § 812.022(2-)(6)r -F-la. Stat, 2013 [ 121 So.”

— 812.022(3) — 18 cases

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04 (2016) fla “2d 310 ], by adding-the inferences in § 812.022(2-)(6)r -F-la. Stat, 2013 [ 121 So.”

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—INSTRUCTION 14.2 (2014) fla “§ 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.”

— 812.022(4) — 7 cases

Tatum v. State (2003) fladistctapp

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2018-02. (2018) fla

— 812.022(5) — 8 cases

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04 (2016) fla “2d 310 ], by adding-the inferences in § 812.022(2-)(6)r -F-la. Stat, 2013 [ 121 So.”

— 812.022(6) — 9 cases

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04 (2016) fla “2d 310 ], by adding-the inferences in § 812.022(2-)(6)r -F-la. Stat, 2013 [ 121 So.”

— 812.022(f) — 1 case

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04 (2016) fla “2d 310 ], by adding-the inferences in § 812.022(2-)(6)r -F-la. Stat, 2013 [ 121 So.”

— 812.022(h) — 1 case

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.