Personal Injury Lawyer

Florida Statute 815.02 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

F.S. 815.02 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:

Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 815.02

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 815
COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 815.02

815.02 Legislative intent.—The Legislature finds and declares that:

(1) Computer-related crime is a growing problem in government as well as in the private sector.

(2) Computer-related crime occurs at great cost to the public since losses for each incident of computer crime tend to be far greater than the losses associated with each incident of other white collar crime.

(3) The opportunities for computer-related crimes in financial institutions, government programs, government records, and other business enterprises through the introduction of fraudulent records into a computer system, the unauthorized use of computer facilities, the alteration or destruction of computerized information or files, and the stealing of financial instruments, data, and other assets are great.

(4) The proliferation of new technology has led to the integration of computer systems in most sectors of the marketplace through the creation of computer networks, greatly extending the reach of computer crime.

(5) While various forms of computer crime might possibly be the subject of criminal charges based on other provisions of law, it is appropriate and desirable that a supplemental and additional statute be provided which proscribes various forms of computer abuse.

History.—s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 2, ch. 2014-208.

F.S. 815.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 815.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 815.02

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 815.02

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 815.02.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court

11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All

Newberger v. State
641 So. 2d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 4 times
Finally we note that Florida was in the forefront in attempting to address the new problems arising from the advent of widespread computer use. Our legislature, in 1978, was the first to enact a specialized computer crimes statute. Hurewitz Lo, supra, at n. 144. At that time it specifically found that "[c]omputer related crime is a growing problem in government as well as the private sector." § 815.02, Fla. Stat. (1979). The other states' legislatures must have agreed because now all but one have enacted similar provisions. Our review of these statutes disclosed that some states have enacted specific provisions that criminalize behavior arguably not forbidden under Florida's statutory scheme. Missouri, for example, prohibits invasion of privacy by use of a computer. § 569.095(5), Mo. Rev. Stat.Ann. (1991) (computer tampering occurs when a person "[a]cesses a computer, computer system, or a computer network and intentionally examines information about another person"). California has criminalized the knowing introduction of a "computer contaminant" such as a virus or worm into a computer, network or system. § 502, Ca. Penal Code (1992). Because of the explosion in…

Cases from cite.case.law:

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO. N. A. As JP As In As ACE v. M. HENDERSON, M., 862 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

. . . Code §§ 42-815 & 42-815.02, to-provide him notice of his right to “foreclosure mediation.” . . .

IN RE H. ENGEN E., 561 B.R. 523 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2016)

. . . This is the aggregate net payment after deduction of the administrative fee of $815.02. . . .

P. CANNON, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 783 F.3d 327 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

. . . Plaintiffs primarily argue that D.C.Code § 1-815.02 gives federal courts “exclusive jurisdiction” over . . .

P. CANNON, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 10 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2014)

. . . this Court has exclusive jurisdiction and venue over at least one of these claims under D.C.Code § l-815.02 . . . (Opp. at 11 (citing D.C.Code § 1-815.02).) . . . Code § 1-815.02(a) (providing jurisdiction only for actions arising under Chapter 8). . . . plaintiffs also argue that this Court is "completely precluded” from "claim splitting” based on § l-815.02 . . . claim splitting argument is likely without merit, because the Court rejects the application of § 1-815.02 . . .

RIVERA, v. LEW,, 949 F. Supp. 2d 266 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as amended, D.C.Code § 1-815.02(a), vests "exclusive jurisdiction” over . . .

ROBINSON, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,, 932 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . Code § 42-815.02(a)(ll)(B)(iv). . . . Code § 42-815.02(a)(ll)(B)(iv). . . .

KOKER, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICING, LLC,, 915 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2013)

. . . (A) of this paragraph to the Mayor; and (2) Obtain a mediation certificate in accordance with § 42-815.02 . . .

P. CANNON, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 873 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . plaintiffs insist that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this case pursuant to D.C.Code § 1-815.02 . . . See D.C.Code § 1-815.02(a) (providing jurisdiction only for actions arising under Chapter 8). . . . Therefore, D.C.Code § 1-815.02(a) is irrelevant. . . .

DIABY, v. N. BIERMAN,, 795 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . D.C.Code § 42-815.02(a)(ll)(B)(iv). . . .

NEWBERGER, v. STATE, 641 So. 2d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . .” § 815.02, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .

GUMZ, v. MORRISSETTE, 772 F.2d 1395 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 815.02, 815.05. There is no evidence that the proceedings against Gumz had reached this stage. . . .

HARTMANN, v. UNITED STATES v. E. HARTMANN,, 79 F.R.D. 705 (E.D. Wis. 1978)

. . . . § 815.02 (West 1977), and the execution must be “issued from and be sealed with the seal of the court . . .