Home
Menu
904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 815.04 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 815.04 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 815.04

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 815
COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 815.04
815.04 Offenses against intellectual property.
(1) A person who willfully, knowingly, and without authorization introduces a computer contaminant or modifies or renders unavailable data, programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device commits an offense against intellectual property.
(2) A person who willfully, knowingly, and without authorization destroys data, programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device commits an offense against intellectual property.
(3) A person who willfully, knowingly, and without authorization discloses or takes data, programs, or supporting documentation that is a trade secret as defined in s. 812.081 or is confidential as provided by law residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, computer network, or electronic device commits an offense against intellectual property.
(4)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an offense against intellectual property is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If the offense is committed for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, the person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 1, ch. 94-100; s. 431, ch. 96-406; s. 1, ch. 2014-177; s. 4, ch. 2014-208; s. 5, ch. 2016-5; s. 20, ch. 2016-6; s. 31, ch. 2022-5.

F.S. 815.04 on Google Scholar

F.S. 815.04 on Casetext

Amendments to 815.04


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 815.04
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S815.04 1 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9698 - F: T
S815.04 1 - PROPERTY CRIMES - TAMPER COMPUTER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - F: T
S815.04 2 - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9699 - F: T
S815.04 2 - PROPERTY CRIMES - DESTROY COMPUTER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - F: T
S815.04 3 - LARC - REPEALED 2022-5 - F: T
S815.04 3 - LARC - VIOLATE TRADE SECRET OR CONFIDENTIAL INFO - F: T
S815.04 3 - EMBEZZLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7723 - F: T
S815.04 4 - EMBEZZLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9776 - F: T
S815.04 4b - FRAUD-SWINDLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7724 - F: S
S815.04 4b - FRAUD-SWINDLE - COMPUTER CRIME WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD - F: S
S815.04 5b - FRAUD-SWINDLE - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9700 - F: S



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All
  1. [T]hose other options were, option one, drop the 800.4 charge, and I believe that's the lewd lascivious charge, I'm not guilty of it, I will plead to - - plead guilty to 400 Counts of 815.04(4a) offense against intellectual property, a computer crime downloading illegal files, an F3 Level 1, he had written. Seventy two months, meaning six years of prison, and 120 months, 10 years, of non sex offender probation.
    PAGE 11
  2. Willoughby v. State

    84 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
    The police subsequently obtained a warrant to search Willoughby's home and seized the laptop. Upon inspection, the police discovered that Willoughby had emailed her employer's client trust fund master list to her laptop. Willoughby was arrested and charged with unlawfully accessing a computer database in violation of sections 815.06(1) and (2)(a), Florida Statutes (2006) (count one), and obtaining trade secret or confidential data in violation of sections 815.04(3)(b) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes (2006) (count two).
    PAGE 1211
  3. State v. Fagg

    41 So. 3d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
    The State appeals an Order Granting y, Motion for Judgment of Acquittal After a Jury Verdict. The State argues that Appellee's alleged act of deleting computer al files from her former employer's computer tit system constituted the destruction of data pursuant to section 815.04(2), Florida Statutes, which provides that "[w]hoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization destroys data . . . residing or existing internal or external to a computer . . . commits an offense against intellectual property." The trial court rejected this argument, concluding instead that because the employer was able to retrieve the files from its hard drives, there was no evidence that Appellee destroyed data as required for a conviction of section 815.04(2). We agree with this conclusion. We also `s agree with the trial court that although m there was testimony that the employer was able to retrieve everything except "the last four days," the employer's witness also testified that he did not know whether anything had been lost from those four days.
    PAGE 395
  4. The court next considers plaintiff's contention that defendants have violated the FCCA. Only § 815.04 of the FCCA, which pertains to offenses against intellectual property, and § 815.06, which pertains to offenses against computer users, appear to have any arguable relevance in this case. There are few cases that interpret the FCCA but it appears that neither section has any applicability here. Both are criminal statutes; while § 815.06 additionally provides that a civil action may be brought, the defendant must first have been convicted of violating the statute. Section 815.04 does not appear to be create any civil remedy and thus implies no private right of action. See, generally, Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) (refusing to infer a private right of action from a "bare criminal statute"). Thus plaintiff has not shown there is a substantial likelihood it would prevail on its claim defendants violated the FCCA.
    PAGE 3
  5. Garcia v. State

    939 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
    (Emphasis added). The offense is a felony. See id. § 815.04(4)(b).
    PAGE 1084
  6. Sepro Corp. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

    839 So. 2d 781 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Id. Defining trade secrets by reference to section 812.081(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), section 815.04(3)(a) plainly covers electronic mail.
    PAGE 785
  7. Newberger v. State

    641 So. 2d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 4 times
    Mitchell Scott Newberger was convicted of the crimes of modifying intellectual property and making a false statement to obtain a credit card. On appeal, he argues that section 815.04, Florida Statutes (1991), which criminalizes modification of intellectual property, is unconstitutional. He also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for both offenses. We hold that section 815.04 is constitutional, and affirm on that point. We also find that the evidence supported Newberger's conviction for making a false statement to obtain a credit card and affirm without discussion of the law and facts relevant to that charge. We reverse his convictions for modifying intellectual property.

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    In M. INGRAM,, 508 B.R. 98 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2014)

    . . . . § 815.04, in an attempt to satisfy his judgment, Wilson caused an execution to be issued to the Sheriff . . .

    WILLOUGHBY, v. STATE, 84 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

    . . . Statutes (2006) (count one), and obtaining trade secret or confidential data in violation of sections 815.04 . . . Count two charges a violation of section 815.04(3)(b) of the Florida Statutes which states, “Whoever . . . However, section 815.04(3)(b) does not include a requirement that the defendant have a malicious purpose . . .

    STATE v. S. FAGG,, 41 So. 3d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

    . . . from her former employer’s computer system constituted the destruction of data pursuant to section 815.04 . . . drives, there was no evidence that Appellee destroyed data as required for a conviction of section 815.04 . . .

    GARCIA, v. STATE, 939 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

    . . . 839.25, Florida Statutes (2000), and unlawful modification of computer data in violation of subsection 815.04 . . . Subsection 815.04(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization . . . See id. § 815.04(4)(b). This statute addresses what is colloquially referred to as “hacking.” . . . information already existing in the computer system, she would have been in violation of subsection 815.04 . . . The evidence here did not support a conviction for modifying intellectual property under subsection 815.04 . . .

    SEPRO CORPORATION, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, L. L. C., 839 So. 2d 781 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

    . . . confidential and exempt from the public disclosure mandate of § 119.07(1) pursuant to the exemptions in §§ 815.04 . . . public necessity that trade secret information as defined in s. 812.081, and as provided for in s. 815.04 . . . were intended to apply only to computer data, programs or supporting documentation exempted by section 815.04 . . . Section 815.04(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), on which the order under review also relies, provides: . . . Defining trade secrets by reference to section 812.081 (l)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), section 815.04 . . .

    In HAYWARD,, 281 B.R. 362 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2001)

    . . . That in addition to the six payments of $135.84 ($815.04 total) and the $756.09 payment comes to a total . . .

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

    . . . On appeal, he argues that section 815.04, Florida Statutes (1991), which criminalizes modification of . . . We hold that section 815.04 is constitutional, and affirm on that point. . . . The state charged Newberger with two counts of violating section 815.04 based on his use of the nine . . . We therefore hold that section 815.04, Florida Statutes (1991), is not unconstitutionally vague. . . . The state reads section 815.04 too broadly. . . .

    CITY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF COLUMBUS, M. v. UNITED STATES, 203 F. Supp. 398 (S.D. Ohio 1962)

    . . . the gross estate in the total amount of $6,537.57, increasing the gross estate to the amount of $883,-815.04 . . .

    CALIFORNIA BANK v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY GUARANTY CO., 129 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1942)

    . . . States paid Anderson the contract price ($141,000) as follows: $103,829.96 prior to June 30, 1938, $28,-815.04 . . . On that date, before any claim was paid by appellee, the United States paid Anderson $28,-815.04 from . . .