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. 812.15

812.15 Unauthorized reception of communications services; penalties.—

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Cable operator” means a communications service provider who provides some or all of its communications services pursuant to a “cable television franchise” issued by a “franchising authority,” as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. s. 522(9) and (10) (1992).

(b) “Cable system” means any communications service network, system, or facility owned or operated by a cable operator.

(c) “Communications device” means any type of electronic mechanism, transmission line or connections and appurtenances thereto, instrument, device, machine, equipment, or software that is capable of intercepting, transmitting, acquiring, decrypting, or receiving any communications service, or any part, accessory, or component thereof, including any computer circuit, splitter, connector, switches, transmission hardware, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, electronic mechanism, or other component, accessory, or part of any communications device which is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, decryption, or reception of any communications service.

(d) “Communications service” means any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation by any cable system or by any radio, fiber optic, photooptical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, satellite, microwave, data transmission, Internet-based, or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, including, but not limited to, any electronic, data, video, audio, Internet access, microwave, and radio communications, transmissions, signals, and services, and any such communications, transmissions, signals, and services lawfully provided for a charge or compensation, directly or indirectly by or through any of those networks, systems, or facilities.

(e) “Communications service provider” means:

1. Any person or entity owning or operating any cable system or any fiber optic, photooptical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, satellite, wireless, microwave, radio, data transmission, or Internet-based distribution network, system, or facility.

2. Any person or entity providing any lawful communications service, whether directly or indirectly, as a reseller or licensee, by or through any such distribution network, system, or facility.

(f) “Manufacture, development, or assembly of a communications device” means to make, produce, develop, or assemble a communications device or any part, accessory, or component thereof, or to modify, alter, program, or reprogram any communications device so that it is capable of facilitating the commission of a violation of this section.

(g) “Multipurpose device” means any communications device that is capable of more than one function and includes any component thereof.

(2)(a) A person may not knowingly intercept, receive, decrypt, disrupt, transmit, retransmit, or acquire access to any communications service without the express authorization of the cable operator or other communications service provider, as stated in a contract or otherwise, with the intent to defraud the cable operator or communications service provider, or to knowingly assist others in doing those acts with the intent to defraud the cable operator or other communications provider. For the purpose of this section, the term “assist others” includes:

1. The sale, transfer, license, distribution, deployment, lease, manufacture, development, or assembly of a communications device for the purpose of facilitating the unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, or access to any communications service offered by a cable operator or any other communications service provider; or

2. The sale, transfer, license, distribution, deployment, lease, manufacture, development, or assembly of a communications device for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any effective technology, device, or software, or any component or part thereof, used by a cable operator or other communications service provider to protect any communications service from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, disruption, access, decryption, transmission, or retransmission.

(b) Any person who willfully violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3)(a) Any person who willfully violates paragraph (2)(a), paragraph (4)(a), or subsection (5) and who has been previously convicted of any such provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Any person who willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain violates paragraph (2)(a), paragraph (4)(a), or subsection (5) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4)(a) Any person who intentionally possesses a communications device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of committing, or assisting others in committing, a violation of paragraph (2)(a) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b) Any person who intentionally possesses five or more communications devices and knows or has reason to know that the design of such devices renders them primarily useful for committing, or assisting others in committing, a violation of paragraph (2)(a) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) Any person who intentionally possesses fifty or more communications devices and knows or has reason to know that the design of such devices renders them primarily useful for committing, or assisting others in committing, a violation of paragraph (2)(a) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) It is unlawful for any person to place in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication, including any electronic medium, any advertisement that, in whole or in part, promotes the sale of a communications device if the person placing the advertisement knows or has reason to know that the device is designed to be primarily useful for committing, or assisting others in committing, a violation of paragraph (2)(a). Any person who violates this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(6) All fines shall be imposed as provided in s. 775.083 for each communications device involved in the prohibited activity or for each day a defendant is in violation of this section.

(7) The court shall, in addition to any other sentence authorized by law, sentence a person convicted of violating this section to make restitution as authorized by law.

(8) Upon conviction of a defendant for violating this section, the court may, in addition to any other sentence authorized by law, direct that the defendant forfeit any communications device in the defendant’s possession or control which was involved in the violation for which the defendant was convicted.

(9) A violation of paragraph (2)(a) may be deemed to have been committed at any place where the defendant manufactures, develops, or assembles any communications devices involved in the violation, or assists others in these acts, or any place where the communications device is sold or delivered to a purchaser or recipient. It is not a defense to a violation of paragraph (2)(a) that some of the acts constituting the violation occurred outside the state.

(10)(a) Any person aggrieved by any violation of this section may bring a civil action in a circuit court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) The court may:

1. Grant temporary and final injunctions on terms it finds reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of this section in conformity with the principles that govern the granting of injunctive relief from threatened loss or damage in other civil cases, except that a showing of special or irreparable damages to the person need not be made.

2. At any time while the action is pending, order the impounding, on reasonable terms, of any communications device that is in the custody or control of the violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in the alleged violation of this section, and may grant other equitable relief, including the imposition of a constructive trust, as the court considers reasonable and necessary.

3. Award damages pursuant to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).

4. Direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorney’s fees, to an aggrieved party who prevails.

5. As part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation of this section, order the remedial modification or destruction of any communications device, or any other device or equipment, involved in the violation which is in the custody or control of the violator or has been impounded under subparagraph 2.

(c) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed in accordance with subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2.:

1. The party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.

a. Actual damages include the retail value of all communications services to which the violator had unauthorized access as a result of the violation and the retail value of any communications service illegally available to each person to whom the violator directly or indirectly provided or distributed a communications device. In proving actual damages, the party aggrieved must prove only that the violator manufactured, distributed, or sold a communications device and is not required to prove that any such device was actually used in violation of this section.

b. In determining the violator’s profits, the party aggrieved must prove only the violator’s gross revenue, and the violator must prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation.

2. Upon election of such damages at any time before final judgment is entered, the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each communications device involved in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 for each such device, as the court considers just.

(d) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory under this section, by an amount of not more than $50,000 for each communications device involved in the action and for each day the defendant is in violation of this section.

(e) In any case in which the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100.

(11) This section shall not be construed to impose any criminal or civil liability upon any state or local law enforcement agency; any state or local government agency, municipality, or authority; or any communications service provider unless such entity is acting knowingly and with intent to defraud a communications service provider as defined in this section.

(12) A person that manufactures, produces, assembles, designs, sells, distributes, licenses, or develops a multipurpose device shall not be in violation of this section unless that person acts knowingly and with an intent to defraud a communications services provider and the multipurpose device:

(a) Is manufactured, developed, assembled, produced, designed, distributed, sold, or licensed for the primary purpose of committing a violation of this section;

(b) Has only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than for the commission of any violation of this section; or

(c) Is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for the purpose of committing any violation of this section.

(13) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts, software code, or components for, a communications device provide for a response to any particular technology, device, or software, or any component or part thereof, used by the provider, owner, or licensee of any communications service or of any data, audio or video programs, or transmissions, to protect any such communications, data, audio or video service, programs, or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission, or retransmission.

History.—s. 3, ch. 92-155; s. 1241, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 98-214; s. 1, ch. 99-261; s. 1, ch. 2003-186.

F.S. 812.15 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.15 on CourtListener

Amendments to 812.15

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 812.15

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

S812.15 2a - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVCS WO AUTH SUBSQ OFF - F: T

S812.15 2a - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVCS WO AUTH - M: F

S812.15 2a - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVC FINANCIAL GAIN - F: T

S812.15 3a - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVCS WO AUTH SUBSQ OFF - F: T

S812.15 3a - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMM SVCS SUBSQ OFF - F: T

S812.15 3a - FRAUD - ADV PROMOTE SALE OF INTERCEPT DEVICE SUBSQ OFF - F: T

S812.15 3b - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC #4106 - F: T

S812.15 3b - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVCS FINANCIAL GAIN - F: T

S812.15 3b - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMM SVCS FINAN GAIN - F: T

S812.15 3b - FRAUD - ADV PROMOTE SALE INTERCEPT DEVICE FINAN GAIN - F: T

S812.15 4a - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVCS - M: F

S812.15 4a - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMM SVCS SUBSQ OFF - F: T

S812.15 4a - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE INTERCEPT COMM SVCS FINAN GAIN - F: T

S812.15 4b - FRAUD - POSS 5 MORE DEVICES INTERCEPT COMM SVCS - F: T

S812.15 4c - FRAUD - POSS 50 MORE DEVICES INTERCEPT COMM SVCS - F: S

S812.15 5 - FRAUD - AD PROMOTE SALE OF INTERCEPT DEVICE SUBSQ OFF - F: T

S812.15 5 - FRAUD - AD PROMOTE SALE OF INTERCEPT DEVICE FINAN GAIN - F: T

S812.15 5 - FRAUD - AD TO PROMOTE SALE OF INTERCEPT DEVICE - M: F

Cases Citing Statute 812.15

Total Results: 83

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

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 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