Personal Injury Lawyer

Florida Statute 895.06 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

F.S. 895.06 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:

Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 895.06

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 895
OFFENSES CONCERNING RACKETEERING AND ILLEGAL DEBTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 895.06

895.06 Civil investigative subpoenas; public records exemption.—

(1) If, pursuant to the civil enforcement provisions of s. 895.05, an investigative agency has reason to believe that a person or other enterprise has engaged in, or is engaging in, activity in violation of this chapter, the investigative agency may administer oaths or affirmations, subpoena witnesses or material, and collect evidence.

(2) A subpoena issued pursuant to this chapter is confidential for 120 days after the date of its issuance. The subpoenaed person or entity may not disclose the existence of the subpoena to any person or entity other than his or her attorney during the 120-day period. The subpoena must include a reference to the confidentiality of the subpoena and a notice to the recipient of the subpoena that disclosure of the existence of the subpoena to any other person or entity except the subpoenaed person’s or entity’s attorney is prohibited. The investigative agency may apply ex parte to the circuit court for the circuit in which a subpoenaed person or entity resides, is found, or transacts business for an order directing that the subpoenaed person or entity not disclose the existence of the subpoena to any other person or entity except the subpoenaed person’s attorney for an additional period of time for good cause shown by the investigative agency. The order shall be served on the subpoenaed person or entity with the subpoena, and the subpoena must include a reference to the order and a notice to the recipient of the subpoena that disclosure of the existence of the subpoena to any other person or entity in violation of the order may subject the subpoenaed person or entity to punishment for contempt of court. Such an order may be granted by the court only upon a showing:

(a) Of sufficient factual grounds to reasonably indicate a violation of ss. 895.01-895.06;

(b) That the documents or testimony sought appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and

(c) Of facts that reasonably indicate that disclosure of the subpoena would hamper or impede the investigation or would result in a flight from prosecution.

(3) If matter that the investigative agency seeks to obtain by the subpoena is located outside the state, the person or enterprise subpoenaed may make such matter available to the investigative agency or its representative for examination at the place where such matter is located. The investigative agency may designate representatives, including officials of the jurisdiction in which the matter is located, to inspect the matter on its behalf and may respond to similar requests from officials of other jurisdictions.

(4) Upon failure of a person or enterprise, without lawful excuse, to obey a subpoena issued under this section or a subpoena issued in the course of a civil proceeding instituted pursuant to s. 895.05, and after reasonable notice to such person or enterprise, the investigative agency may apply to the circuit court in which such civil proceeding is pending or, if no civil proceeding is pending, to the circuit court for the judicial circuit in which such person or enterprise resides, is found, or transacts business for an order compelling compliance. Except in a prosecution for perjury, an individual who complies with a court order to provide testimony or material after asserting a privilege against self-incrimination to which the individual is entitled by law shall not have the testimony or material so provided, or evidence derived therefrom, received against him or her in any criminal investigation or proceeding.

(5) A person who fails to obey a court order entered pursuant to this section may be punished for contempt of court.

(6) The investigative agency may stipulate to protective orders with respect to documents and information submitted in response to a subpoena issued under this section.

(7)(a) Information held by an investigative agency pursuant to an investigation of a violation of s. 895.03 is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

(b) Information made confidential and exempt under paragraph (a) may be disclosed by the investigative agency to:

1. A government entity in the performance of its official duties.

2. A court or tribunal.

(c) Information made confidential and exempt under paragraph (a) is no longer confidential and exempt once all investigations to which the information pertains are completed, unless the information is otherwise protected by law.

(d) For purposes of this subsection, an investigation is considered complete once the investigative agency either files an action or closes its investigation without filing an action.

History.—s. 1, ch. 79-218; s. 2, ch. 84-38; s. 4, ch. 87-139; s. 20, ch. 88-381; s. 1448, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2015-99; s. 3, ch. 2016-84; s. 1, ch. 2020-90.

Note.—Former s. 943.465.

F.S. 895.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 895.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 895.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 895.06

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 895.06.

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

Sreenivasan Asokan, Chakravarthy Raghavan, Nanni Pidikiti, Rakesh Parekh, Ram Reddy, Madhubala Reddy, Rodger Lodge, Anuradha Asokan, Indep. Anesthesia Servs., P.A. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co.
302 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (M.D. Fla. 2017) Cited 16 times
Motion for summary judgment
Motion to dismiss
11 more...
On April 4, 2016, the deadline for amended pleadings, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint, adding their spouses and employers as parties, and dropping a claim for rescission of contracts. (Doc. 41). The First Amended Complaint alleged several causes of action: Count I alleged a claim under Florida's RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 895.01 – 895.06. Count II alleged a claim for common law unfair competition. Count III asserted a misleading advertising claim under Florida Statute § 817.41. Count IV alleged a claim of fraud by concealment. Count V asserted a common law fraud claim. Count VI asserted a claim of aiding and abetting against American General. Count VII asserted a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201 –.23. Count VIII asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Count IX asserted a claim for constructive fraud. Finally, Count X asserted a claim for negligent misrepresentation.
PAGE 1309
Jackson v. State
202 So. 3d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 2 times
Petitioner argues that Williams is wrongly decided and complains that, unlike the State, a criminal defendant does not have an investigative subpoena power or the right to have a subpoena remain secret. Cf. State v. Investigation, 802 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that section 27.04, Florida Statutes, allows “the state attorney to issue subpoenas duces tecum for records as part of an ongoing investigation”) (additional citations omitted); see also § 119.071(2)(c) 1, Fla. Stat. (2015) (exempting “active criminal investigative information” from the public records law); § 895.06(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing for confidentiality of civil investigative subpoenas issued in racketeering investigations).
PAGE 100
De La Osa v. State
158 So. 3d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
3 more...
We affirm the convictions for conspiracy to commit racketeering and organized scheme to defraud, but reverse the racketeering conviction because the State failed to prove that de la Osa committed the two predicate acts required by the Florida RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act, sections 895.01 –895.06, Florida Statutes (2003).
PAGE 716
Marolf v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
172 So. 3d 450 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
2 more...
In the instant case, the Complaint did not allege merely that the currency was an “instrumentality” of a crime, nor seek forfeiture based only upon the definition of “contraband article” contained in section 932.701(2)(a)(5). Count II of the Complaint alleged that Mr. Marolf was engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and an organized scheme involving, inter alia, the ongoing purchase and sale of stolen goods. The Complaint alleged that the $197,016 represented proceeds realized through, or derived directly or indirectly from, this pattern of racketeering activity, and that the currency was intended to be used in furtherance of this criminal enterprise. Count II sought forfeiture of the currency pursuant to The Florida RICO Act (sections 895.01 –895.06, Florida Statutes (2014) ), which provides a civil forfeiture remedy for proceeds derived from a pattern of racketeering activity. The Florida RICO Act contains the following relevant definitions :
PAGE 454
Pioneer Military Lending of Georgia, Inc. v. Crist
Case No.: 4:05cv153-SPM/AK (N.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2006)
Motion to dismiss
3 more...
See Check 'n Go of Florida, Inc. v. State, 790 So. 2d 454, 457-58 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App. 2001) (civil investigative subpoena under 895.06, Fla. Stat., is not a pending charge and its function, to allow investigative agency to collect evidence to determine if a RICO violation has occurred, is distinct from an adjudication); Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 781 So. 2d 1187, 1190 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App. 2001) (rules of civil procedure do not apply to civil investigative subpoena under 895.06, Fla. Stat.); see also Major League Baseball v. Butterworth, 181 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1321 n. 2 (a civil investigative demand is simply part of an executive investigation and it is not a court proceeding over which the Florida Supreme Court has rule making authority).
PAGE 8
Richardson v. State
915 So. 2d 766 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 1 times
Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (§§ 895.01— 895.06, Fla. Stat.(1997)).
PAGE 767
State v. Hanna
858 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 12 times
The Florida RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, sections 895.01 — 895.06, Fla. Stat. (2002).
PAGE 1250
Check ‘n Go of Florida, Inc. v. State
790 So. 2d 454 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 4 times
2 more...
§§ 895.01- 895.06, Fla. Stat. (2000)
PAGE 457
Eight Hundred v. State
781 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 17 times
§ 895.06(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). An investigative agency is defined as "the Department of Legal Affairs, the Office of Statewide Prosecution, or the office of a state attorney." § 895.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1999).
PAGE 1190
Howard v. State
738 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 1 times
Appellants first contend that the trial court erroneously denied their motions for judgment of acquittal on conspiracy to commit racketeering under Florida's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or "RICO," codified at sections 895.01 — 895.06, Florida Statutes (1997). Appellants specifically argue that the trial court erroneously denied their motions for judgment of acquittal since the State failed to present sufficient evidence that they conspired to engage in a criminal enterprise. We disagree. The evidence presented is ample to support the charge under the three-prong test of Boyd v. State, 578 So.2d 718, 721-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1991). The facts of the instant case are more akin to the second district's holding in Clark v. State, 645 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), review denied, 652 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1995), than Brown v. State, 652 So.2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Cases from cite.case.law:
ASOKAN, P. A. C. M. D. P. A. M. D. P. C. S. M. D. P. A. P. A. v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . . §§ 895.01 - 895.06. Count II alleged a claim for common law unfair competition. . . .
JACKSON, v. STATE, 202 So. 3d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Stat. (2015) (exempting “active criminal investigative information” from the public records law); § 895.06 . . .
DE LA OSA, v. STATE, 158 So. 3d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . acts required by the Florida RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act, sections 895.01-895.06 . . .
MAROLF v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 172 So. 3d 450 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Count II sought forfeiture of the currency pursuant to The Florida RICO Act (sections 895.01-895.06, . . .
IN RE NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS, INC. S. N. v. TRS, 502 B.R. 416 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013)

. . . . § 895.01-895.06, (x) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (xi) . . .
In NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS, INC, S. N. v. TRS, 450 B.R. 504 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011)

. . . . § 895.01-895.06, (x) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (xi) . . .
L. RICHARDSON, v. STATE, 915 So. 2d 766 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (§§ 895.01-895.06, Fla. Stat.(1997)). . . .
STATE v. HANNA,, 858 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . The Florida RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, sections 895.01-895.06, Fla. . . .
CHECK N GO OF FLORIDA, INC. v. STATE, 790 So. 2d 454 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . investigatory subpoena duces tecum to the appellant, Check ‘n Go of Florida, Inc., pursuant to section 895.06 . . . office issued the subpoena duces tecum in question pursuant to its investigatory authority under section 895.06 . . . No case law in Florida defines the “reason to believe” standard in the context of section 895.06. . . . The purpose of the subpoena power under section 895.06 is to allow an investigative agency to investigate . . . SHARP, W„ and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . §§ 895.01-895.06, Fla. Stat. (2000) . Terry v. . . .
EIGHT HUNDRED, INC. v. STATE, 781 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . The subpoena was issued pursuant to section 895.06, Florida Statutes, which authorizes the issuance of . . . captioned as a subpoena duces tecum, it was issued as an investigative subpoena pursuant to section 895.06 . . . agency may administer oaths or affirmations, subpoena witnesses or material, and collect evidence. § 895.06 . . . Prior to 1984, section 895.06(2) provided that the investigatory agency’s collection of evidence was . . . of Civil Procedure to the issuance of investigative subpoenas under the current version of section 895.06 . . .
HOWARD v. STATE, 738 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Florida’s Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or “RICO,” codified at sections 895.01-895.06 . . .
W. SARKIS W. v. PAFFORD OIL COMPANY, INC. a a, 697 So. 2d 524 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . , and a violation of the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, sections 895.01-895.06 . . .
MONTOZZI, v. STATE, 633 So. 2d 563 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . .-01-895.06, Fla.Stat. (1991). . . . .
TRANSCALL AMERICA, INC. d b a ATC v. A. BUTTERWORTH,, 604 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . connection with enforcement of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and cited to section 895.06 . . .
ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, a v. SCARFONE,, 939 F.2d 1472 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . . §§ 895.01-895.06 (West Supp.1991). . . .
STATE OF FLORIDA v. CAMPEAU, 48 Fla. Supp. 2d 169 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . Sections 895.101-895.06 are titled “The Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. . . .
STATE v. LONG, E. CMH d b a, 544 So. 2d 219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See §§ 895.01 — 895.06, Fla.Stat. (1985 and Supp.1986). . . . .
VICKERY, v. STATE NUNNARI, v. STATE, 539 So. 2d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Sections 895.01-895.06, Florida Statutes (1985). . . . .
GALERIE FURSTENBERG, v. COFFARO, C. V. M. d b a C. V. M. A. D. L. d b a T. R. a k a a k a T. R., 697 F. Supp. 1282 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . .-01-895.06 (1981), which is “nearly identical to the federal RICO statute.” . . .
TELFARE, v. STATE, 529 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The Florida RICO Act is contained in sections 895.01-895.06, Florida Statutes (1985). . . .
REDISH, v. STATE, 525 So. 2d 928 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Sections 895.01-895.06, Florida Statutes. . Section 687.071(3), Florida Statutes. . . . .
J. BANDERAS, L. R. N. A. P. A. P. a k a St. s v. BANCO CENTRAL ECUADOR,, 461 So. 2d 265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . .-01-895.06, Florida Statutes (1981). . . .
J. DeLISI, Sr. v. BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Sections 943.46-943.465, Fla.Stat. (1979); subsequently revised and recodified, sections 895.01-895.06 . . .