Home
Jacksonville Location Phone Call/Texting Policy How do Fees Work?
Criminal Defense DUI Defense Foreclosure Defense Copyright Workers Compensation Attorney Jacksonville Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statutes Georgia Code Jacksonville Accident Attorney Real Estate Attorney Jacksonville Florida Criminal Lawyer Jacksonville Notary Public
Menu
904-383-7448
Florida Statute 876.155 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 876.155 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 876.155

The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 876
CRIMINAL ANARCHY, TREASON, AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 876.155
876.155 Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.—The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or
(4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.
History.—s. 1, ch. 81-249; s. 1416, ch. 97-102.

F.S. 876.155 on Google Scholar

F.S. 876.155 on Casetext

Amendments to 876.155


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 876.155
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 876.155.

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. Nicol v. State

    939 So. 2d 231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
    Even if Nicol's arrest for loitering and prowling were invalid, the arrest was still valid since the facts known to the officer would have supported his arrest on a valid, alternative basis. See, e.g., State v. Carmody, 553 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); McCarter v. State, 463 So.2d 546, 549 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). property of another. These statutes, which were first passed in the 1950's, were apparently aimed at the Ku Klux Klan. The Florida Supreme Court found one of these statutes (all of which are virtually identical) unconstitutional in Robinson v. State, 393 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 1980) (holding that statute criminalizing wearing hood or mask on public property was overbroad, and exceptions provided by section 876.16 were not sufficient to cure this fatal overbreadth, nor were the statutory words susceptible of any limiting construction). The legislature apparently attempted to cure these problems in 1981, by the passage of section 876.155, Florida Statutes, which limits the application of these statutes.
    PAGE 234

  2. Mash v. State

    499 So. 2d 35 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 3 times
    Reason # 1 is invalid on three separate points. First, the use of a dangerous weapon is an essential element of the offense of armed robbery, Thorne v. State, 496 So.2d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and is thus a factor already taken into account in calculating the guideline sentence. Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1985). Second, since appellant was not convicted of wearing a mask, pursuant to sections 876.13 and 876.155(4), Florida Statutes, the use of this reason violates Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11). Third, the use of the victim's removal from the scene as a reason for departure is also invalid under the Hendrix case since it is an inherent element of the kidnapping in this case.
    PAGE 36

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    NICOL, Jr. v. STATE, 939 So. 2d 231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

    . . . The legislature apparently attempted to cure these problems in 1981, by the passage of section 876.155 . . .

    MASH, v. STATE, 499 So. 2d 35 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

    . . . Second, since appellant was not convicted of wearing a mask, pursuant to sections 876.13 and 876.155( . . .