Home
Menu
904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 849.14 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 849.14 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 849.14

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 849
GAMBLING
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 849.14
849.14 Unlawful to bet on result of trial or contest of skill, etc.Whoever stakes, bets, or wagers any money or other thing of value upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed or power or endurance of human or beast, or whoever receives in any manner whatsoever any money or other thing of value staked, bet, or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being staked, bet, or wagered, by or for any other person upon any such result, or whoever knowingly becomes the custodian or depositary of any money or other thing of value so staked, bet, or wagered upon any such result, or whoever aids, or assists, or abets, or influences in any manner in any of such acts all of which are hereby forbidden, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.s. 1, ch. 5959, 1909; s. 1, ch. 6188, 1911; RGS 5514; CGL 7672; s. 1069, ch. 71-136; s. 1366, ch. 97-102; s. 35, ch. 2021-271.

F.S. 849.14 on Google Scholar

F.S. 849.14 on Casetext

Amendments to 849.14


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 849.14
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S849.14 - GAMBLING - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9540 - M: S
S849.14 - GAMBLING - BET ON TRIAL OR CONTEST OF SKILL - F: T



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. The Parimutuels, which own and operate casinos in Florida, FAC ¶¶ 9-11, 18, are not pleased with the Compact. They are not affiliated with the Tribe, and Florida law prohibits sports betting beyond what the Compact allows. See Fla. Stat. § 849.14 ; FAC ¶ 79. Thus, the Parimutuels cannot offer online sports betting (or any sports betting) unless they do so through some licensing agreement with the Tribe. See FAC ¶¶ 125, 137. The Parimutuels allege that they will lose revenue because their potential casino patrons will take their gambling dollars to the Tribe. FAC ¶¶ 132-36, 144-45.
    PAGE 1281
  2. 32. Section 849.09, s. 849.14, s. 849.15, s. 849.23, or s. 849.25, relating to gambling.
    PAGE 202
  3. Polakoff v. State

    586 So. 2d 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    4. Section 849.09, s. 849.14, s. 849.15, s. 849.23, s. 849.24, or s. 849.25, relating to gambling.
    PAGE 390
  4. Vickery v. State

    539 So. 2d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 3 times
    The first constitutional challenge raised is that the Act violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States and State of Florida Constitutions, by the legislature impermissibly delegating basic policy decisions, absent ascertainable standards, to the prosecutor, giving him the unbridled discretion to pursue either a misdemeanor conviction under section 849.14 for each separate gambling incident, or a felony conviction under section 895.03 for the entire gambling episode. A comparable argument was raised in State v. Cogswell, 521 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1988), in which the defendant contended that section 849.25 (bookmaking) was unconstitutional as violative of the due process and equal protection clauses, because the statute authorized the prosecution of bookmaking as a felony, which same conduct could be treated as a gambling misdemeanor under section 849.14. Our supreme court found no constitutional violation in the discretion so delegated to the prosecutor and affirmed the conviction. We consider that Cogswell is dispositive of the due process and equal protection challenges raised by appellants herein, and, based upon Cogswell, we likewise…
  5. Shaktman v. State

    529 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    The appellants were charged by informations with the felony offense of bookmaking pursuant to section 849.25, Florida Statutes (1983). The appellants subsequently filed consolidated motions to dismiss the informations based upon their claim that the statute violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution. The appellants devoted a substantial portion of their argument to the point that the conduct prohibited as a felony in section 849.25 and the conduct prohibited as a misdemeanor in section 849.14 are essentially identical, thus rendering section 849.25 susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory application. Notwithstanding the appellants' contention or the validity of their arguments, the Florida supreme court has addressed this precise constitutional challenge to section 849.25 and resolved the question contrary to their position. State v. Cogswell, 521 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1988).
    PAGE 723
  6. State v. Bonsignore

    522 So. 2d 420 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
    Appellee was charged under the felony bookmaking statute, Section 849.25(1), which forbids the "taking or receiving any bet." He says that because there is a misdemeanor statute, Section 849.14, proscribing the same conduct that the prosecutor is given too much discretion in how to charge a person and that is an unconstitutional denial of equal protection.
  7. State v. Cogswell

    521 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1988)   Cited 23 times
    Section 849.14 provides:
    PAGE 1082
  8. State v. Cogswell

    504 So. 2d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 4 times
    We affirm and note our agreement with the trial court that section 849.25, Florida Statutes (1985) is constitutionally invalid as a due process and equal protection violation to the extent that it permits the prosecution as a felony of the same conduct treated as a misdemeanor by section 849.14, Florida Statutes (1985). The same prohibited conduct of "taking or receiving a bet" may be prosecuted under either statute, depending upon the discretion of the prosecutor. We believe this is the situation contemplated by the Florida Supreme Court in Soverino v. State, 356 So.2d 269, 272 n. 2 (Fla. 1978) when it stated:
  9. State v. Tate

    420 So. 2d 116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 6 times
    We now hold that the bookmaking statute is also not applicable to a single act of gambling. If a single act of gambling were to be punishable under the bookmaking section, sections 849.08, 849.11, and 849.14, Florida Statutes (1981), would lose their force because the state could always prosecute a single act of gambling as a felony under section 849.25, or if the gambling occurred on someone's premises, under section 849.01. We must construe all statutes relating to the same subject matter with reference to each other in such a manner that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each. Ferguson v. State.
    PAGE 118

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    UNITED STATES v. LYONS, 740 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

    . . . . § 849.14. . . .

    UNITED STATES v. LYONS,, 870 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D. Mass. 2012)

    . . . . § 849.14 (2012); Mass. Gen. Laws eh. 271, § 17A (2012). . . .

    In CAPITOL INVESTMENTS, INC. v., 473 B.R. 838 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2012)

    . . . . § 849.14 states that: Whoever stakes, bets or wagers any money or other thing of value upon the result . . .

    DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, v. BRADENTON GROUP, INC. v., 727 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1998)

    . . . Section 84-9.09, s. 849.14, s. 849.15, s. 849.23, or s. 849.25, relating to gambling. § 895.02(l)(a)( . . .

    CHEYENNE SALES, LTD. v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, 8 F. Supp. 2d 469 (E.D. Pa. 1998)

    . . . . §§ 849.14, 849.25; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1084, “contacted Western Union sometime prior to December 22 . . .

    POLAKOFF, v. STATE, 586 So. 2d 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

    . . . Section 849.09, s. 849.14, s. 849.15, s. 849.23, s. 849.24, or s. 849.25, relating to gambling. . . .

    VICKERY, v. STATE NUNNARI, v. STATE, 539 So. 2d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

    . . . based upon predicate acts consisting of second degree gambling misdemeanors, in violation of section 849.14 . . . prosecutor, giving him the unbridled discretion to pursue either a misdemeanor conviction under section 849.14 . . . bookmaking as a felony, which same conduct could be treated as a gambling misdemeanor under section 849.14 . . . information under the following provisions of the Florida Statutes: ****** (24) Section 849.09, s. 849.14 . . . Section 849.14, Florida Statutes (1985), provides: 849.14 Unlawful to bet on result of trial or contest . . .

    SHAKTMAN, J. v. STATE, 529 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

    . . . conduct prohibited as a felony in section 849.25 and the conduct prohibited as a misdemeanor in section 849.14 . . .

    STATE v. COGSWELL,, 521 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1988)

    . . . that it permits the prosecution as a felony of the same conduct treated as a misdemeanor by section 849.14 . . . proscribed by that section, a felony, was indistinguishable from the conduct proscribed by section 849.14 . . . been amended by the 1987 legislature to include more elements and to clearly separate it from section 849.14 . . . Section 849.14 provides: 849.14. . . .

    STATE v. BONSIGNORE,, 522 So. 2d 420 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

    . . . He says that because there is a misdemeanor statute, Section 849.14, proscribing the same conduct that . . .

    STATE v. COGSWELL,, 504 So. 2d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

    . . . that it permits the prosecution as a felony of the same conduct treated as a misdemeanor by section 849.14 . . .

    STATE OF FLORIDA v. COGSWELL, 17 Fla. Supp. 2d 40 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1986)

    . . . Florida Statute § 849.14 provides: Whoever stakes, bets or wagers any money or other thing of value upon . . . Section 849.14, on the other hand, prohibits both one who “bets” or “wagers” and one who “receives in . . . without prejudice to the State Attorney to filing a misdemeanor information alleging violation^) of § 849.14 . . .

    STATE v. TATE,, 420 So. 2d 116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

    . . . private bet or wager, either by offering to bet, or by accepting a bet may be guilty of violating section 849.14 . . .

    STATE v. DiGUILLIO,, 413 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

    . . . The trial court noted the similarity between sections 849.25(1) and 849.14, Florida Statutes (1979), . . . failure to specifically allege the acts which charged more than simple gambling as prohibited by section 849.14 . . . Section 849.14 provides: Whoever stakes, bets or wagers any money or other thing of value upon the result . . .

    BOWDEN, v. STATE WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 402 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1981)

    . . . Section 849.09, s. 849.14, s. 849.15, s. 849.23, s. 849.24, or s. 849.25, relating to gambling. 24. . . .

    AIELLO, v. STATE, 390 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

    . . . (See for example Section 849.14) Further, if the State’s interpretation is accepted, the first part of . . .

    A. FERGUSON, v. STATE, 377 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1979)

    . . . conviction for the act of gambling is a second-degree misdemeanor under sections 849.08, 849.11 and 849.14 . . . If a single act of gambling were to be punishable under section 849.01, sections 849.08, 849.11 and 849.14 . . .

    UNITED STATES v. Al ALFONSO, Dr. Sr. Jr. Mr., 552 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1977)

    . . . which it is conducted”, the indictment charged that the appellants’ gambling was in violation of § 849.14 . . . Fla.Stat.Ann., § 849.14 provides: “Whoever stakes, bets or wagers any money or other thing of value upon . . .

    DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, v. ROGERS, d b a, 329 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1976)

    . . . Statutes, is indirectly alleging that the questioned word puzzle contests are in violation of Section 849.14 . . . result of any trial or contest of skill, speed, power, or endurance of man or beast condemned by Section 849.14 . . .

    UNITED STATES v. B. PACHECO N. Jr., 489 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1974)

    . . . .-08 and 849.14 are contained, is styled “Gambling” and treats, inter alia, lottery, keeping of gambling . . .

    UNITED STATES v. LANZA,, 341 F. Supp. 405 (M.D. Fla. 1972)

    . . . subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of Florida Statutes § 849.09(1), F.S.A., Florida Statutes § 849.14 . . .

    UNITED STATES v. IPPOLITO, a k a, 438 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1971)

    . . . . § 1084) and of Florida (Florida Statutes 849.11 and 849.14, F.S.A.). . . .

    R. LAMKIN, C. s a v. FAIRCLOTH, Jr. In, 204 So. 2d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

    . . . . § 616.09 Section 849.14 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides as follows: “Unlawful to bet on result . . . 616.091 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., are participating in the prohibited transactions specified in 849.14 . . . found and adjudged that Section 616.091 did not amend repeal or modify any of the provisions of Section 849.14 . . . notwithstanding the provisions of the gambling laws of the State (e. g., Sections 849.01, 849.09 and 849.14 . . . Section 849.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., states as follows: “849.14 UNLAWFUL TO BET ON RESULT OF TRIAL OR CONTEST . . . Legislature to remove certain games involving the skill of the player from the condemnation of Section 849.14 . . .

    FAIRCLOTH, v. CENTRAL FLORIDA FAIR, INC. a E. a, 202 So. 2d 608 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

    . . . The exception is § 849.14 which declares it unlawful to bet on the result of a trial or contest of skill . . . enumerated ones of skill or chance and (2) if the former, are they nevertheless prohibited by F.S.A. § 849.14 . . . We turn next to F.S.A. § 849.14 which prohibits betting on the result of a trial or contest of skill. . . . But the more logical interpretation is that the legislature intended by enacting F.S.A. § 849.14 to proscribe . . .

    LAMKIN, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL,, 26 Fla. Supp. 107 (Hillsborough Cty. Cir. Ct. 1966)

    . . . officials, notwithstanding the provisions of the gambling laws of the state (e.g., §§849.01, 849.09 and 849.14 . . . of the game only if he achieves the required result, such a game constitutes gambling as defined in §849.14 . . . This court is of the opinion that §849.14 applies to such so-called “games of skill” whether the parties . . . the legislature to remove certain games involving the skill of the player from the condemnation of §849.14 . . .

    G. ZEIDERS, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE,, 136 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

    . . . See Sections 849.01, 849.05, 849.14-849.16, 901. 19, Fla.Stat.1941, F.S.A.; Kirk v. . . .

    TOM COOPER v. THE CITY OF MIAMI, 160 Fla. 656 (Fla. 1948)

    . . . See Sections 849.01, 849.05, 849.14-849.16, 901.19, Fla. Stat. 1941, F.S.A.; Kirk v. . . .

    HAGERTY v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE TELEGRAPH CO., 59 F. Supp. 107 (S.D. Fla. 1945)

    . . . . §§ 849.01, 849.03, 849.09, 849.14, and 550.16). . . .