Florida Statute 812.022 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 812
THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 812.022

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.

F.S. 812.022 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.022 on Casetext

Amendments to 812.022

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 812.022

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 812.022.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 812.022

Total Results: 20

A.O., A JUVENILE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-05-10

Snippet: opposite party can be sustained under the law.”); § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (“[P]roof of possession of property

JOHN GARCIA v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-04-26

Snippet: property. See § 812.014(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2013); Smith v. State, 742 So.

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2019-09

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-01-16

Snippet: emergency. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented

Joseph v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-07-25

Citation: 275 So. 3d 1266

Snippet: entitled to the inference set forth in section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016): Proof of possession

Joseph v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-07-25

Citation: 275 So. 3d 1266

Snippet: entitled to the inference set forth in section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016): Proof of possession

TIMOTHY LEE DOBBINS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-07-24

Citation: 275 So. 3d 1260

Snippet: possession committed the burglary or theft. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing that proof of

A.L. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-07-10

Citation: 275 So. 3d 819

Snippet: of the statutory inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2017), because A.L. did not

A.L. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-07-10

Citation: 275 So. 3d 819

Snippet: of the statutory inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2017), because A.L. did not

A. L. v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-07-10

Snippet: of the statutory inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2017), because A.L. did

Garcia v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-05-01

Snippet: property. See §812.014(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); §812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2013); Smith v. State, 742 So.

Quinones v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-04-24

Citation: 271 So. 3d 1165

Snippet: should have known the jewelry was stolen. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“[P]roof of possession of

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

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-10-25

Citation: 256 So. 3d 1316

Snippet: emergency.] Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented

ARKHEEM J. LAMB v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-05-02

Citation: 246 So. 3d 400

Snippet: time with the wrong crowd after the fact. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“[P]roof of possession of

C.T. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-11-29

Citation: 238 So. 3d 857

Snippet: inference of guilty knowledge provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016), which states that

C.T. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-11-29

Snippet: inference of guilty knowledge provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016), which states that

K.P. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-11-17

Citation: 230 So. 3d 608

Snippet: State’s case rested upon the inference in section 812.022, Florida Statutes (2015), that “proof of possession

K.P. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-11-17

Snippet: State's case rested upon the inference in section 812.022, Florida Statutes (2015), that "proof of possession

JOSEPH DEJESUS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-08-16

Citation: 225 So. 3d 285, 2017 WL 3499925, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11787

Snippet: Appellant. 3 . Pursuant to section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2011), "proof of possession

A.D.P. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-07-14

Citation: 223 So. 3d 428, 2017 WL 2988792, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10101

Snippet: possession of recently stolen property. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). The trial court denied the

A.D.P. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-07-14

Snippet: possession of recently stolen property. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2014).