817.482 Possessing or transferring device for theft of telecommunications service; concealment of destination of telecommunications service.—
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to:
(a) Make or possess any instrument, apparatus, equipment or device designed or adapted for use for the purpose of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment of telecommunications service in violation of s. 817.481; or
(b) Sell, give, transport, or otherwise transfer to another, or offer or advertise to sell, give, or otherwise transfer, any instrument, apparatus, equipment, or device described in paragraph (a), or plans or instructions for making or assembling the same; under circumstances evincing an intent to use or employ such instrument, apparatus, equipment, or device, or to allow the same to be used or employed, for a purpose described in paragraph (a), or knowing or having reason to believe that the same is intended to be so used, or that the aforesaid plans or instructions are intended to be used for making or assembling such instrument, apparatus, equipment, or device.
Any person violating the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) Any person who shall make or possess, for purposes of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment for long-distance telecommunication services, any electronic device capable of duplicating tones or sounds utilized in long-distance telecommunications shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Any such instrument, apparatus, equipment, or device, or plans or instructions therefor, referred to in subsections (1) and (2), may be seized by court order or under a search warrant of a judge or incident to a lawful arrest; and upon the conviction of any person for a violation of any provision of this act, or s. 817.481, such instrument, apparatus, equipment, device, plans, or instructions either shall be destroyed as contraband by the sheriff of the county in which such person was convicted or turned over to the telephone company in whose territory such instrument, apparatus, equipment, device, plans, or instructions were seized.
Cited 27 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...April 4, 1978. *704 Max B. Kogen, Miami, for appellant. Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sidney M. Pertnoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee. ADKINS, Justice. This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County which held that Section 817.482, Florida Statutes (1975) (Ch....
...ssess, for purposes of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment for long distance telecommunication services, an electronic device capable of duplicating tones of sound utilized in long distance telecommunications, to wit: A BLUE BOX, in violation of 817.482, Florida Statutes." By motion to dismiss, which was denied by the court, defendant attacked the constitutionality of the statute, contending that same was vague and ambiguous....
Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ssess, for purposes of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment for long distance telecommunication services, an electronic device capable of duplicating tones of sound utilized in long distance telecommunications, to wit: A BLUE BOX, in violation of 817.482, Florida Statutes....
...e telecommunication services, any electronic device capable of duplicating tones or sounds utilized in long distance telecommunications shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. § 817.482(2), Fla....
ADKINS, Justice. This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County which held that Section 817.482, Florida Statutes (1975) (Ch....
...ssess, for purposes of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment for long distance telecommunication services, an electronic device capable of duplicating tones of sound utilized in long distance telecommunications, to wit: A BLUE BOX, in violation of 817.482, Florida Statutes.” By motion to dismiss, which was denied by the court, defendant attacked the constitutionality of the statute, contending that same was vague and ambiguous....
This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.
