Florida Statute 944.115 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS

Chapter 944
STATE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 944.115

944.115 Smoking prohibited inside state correctional facilities.—

(1) The purpose of this section is to protect the health, comfort, and environment of employees of the Department of Corrections, employees of privately operated correctional facilities, and inmates by prohibiting inmates from using tobacco products inside any office or building within state correctional facilities, and by ensuring that employees and visitors do not use tobacco products inside any office or building within state correctional facilities. Scientific evidence links the use of tobacco products with numerous significant health risks. The use of tobacco products by inmates, employees, or visitors is contrary to efforts by the Department of Corrections to reduce the cost of inmate health care and to limit unnecessary litigation. The Department of Corrections and the private vendors operating correctional facilities shall make smoking-cessation assistance available to inmates in order to implement this section.

(2) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Department” means the Department of Corrections.

(b) “Employee” means an employee of the department or a private vendor in a contractual relationship with the department, and includes persons such as contractors, volunteers, or law enforcement officers who are within a state correctional facility to perform a professional service.

(c) “State correctional facility” means a state or privately operated correctional institution as defined in s. 944.02, or a correctional institution or facility operated under s. 944.105 or chapter 957.

(d) “Tobacco products” means items such as cigars, cigarettes, snuff, loose tobacco, or similar goods made with any part of the tobacco plant, which are prepared or used for smoking, chewing, dipping, sniffing, or other personal use.

(e) “Visitor” means any person other than an inmate or employee who is within a state correctional facility for a lawful purpose and includes, but is not limited to, persons who are authorized to visit state correctional institutions pursuant to s. 944.23 and persons authorized to visit as prescribed by departmental rule or vendor policy.

(f) “Prohibited areas” means any indoor areas of any building, portable, or other enclosed structure within a state correctional facility. The secretary of the department may, by rule, designate other areas, including vehicles, as “prohibited areas” to be regulated under this section. Neither employee housing on the grounds of a state correctional facility nor maximum security inmate housing areas may be designated as prohibited areas under this section.

(3)(a) An inmate within a state correctional facility may not use tobacco products in prohibited areas at any time while in the custody of the department or under the supervision of a private vendor operating a correctional facility.

(b)1. An employee or visitor may not use any tobacco products in prohibited areas.

2. The warden or supervisor of a state correctional facility shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the tobacco prohibition for employees and visitors is strictly enforced.

(4) An inmate who violates this section commits a disciplinary infraction and is subject to punishment determined to be appropriate by the disciplinary authority in the state correctional facility, including, but not limited to, forfeiture of gain-time or the right to earn gain-time in the future under s. 944.28.

(5) The department may adopt rules and the private vendors operating correctional facilities may adopt policies and procedures for the implementation of this section, the designation of prohibited areas and smoking areas, and for the imposition of the following penalties:

(a) Inmates who violate this section will be subject to disciplinary action as provided by rule and in accordance with this section.

(b) Employees who violate this section will be subject to disciplinary action as provided by rule.

(c) Visitors who violate this section will be subject to removal of authorization to enter a correctional facility as provided by rule.

History.—s. 16, ch. 99-271; s. 11, ch. 2000-161; s. 6, ch. 2004-248; s. 112, ch. 2019-3; s. 7, ch. 2023-268.

F.S. 944.115 on Google Scholar

F.S. 944.115 on Casetext

Amendments to 944.115

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 944.115

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 944.115.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 944.115

Total Results: 16

Bank of America, N.A., Mark P. Maller, Brian Mormile, Douglas Divirgilio and Frederick Perry v. Don Beverly and Dean Kretschmar

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2015-06-10T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 183 So. 3d 1099, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8801

Snippet: of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). Where the

Lepisto v. Senior Lifestyle Newport Ltd. Partnership

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2012-01-25T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 78 So. 3d 89, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 979, 2012 WL 204264

Snippet: Options of Chicago Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). However, Newport

Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc.

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2011-11-23T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 86 So. 3d 456, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 665, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 2764, 2011 WL 5864830

Snippet: First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995)). *484Petitioner

Ago

Court: Fla. Att'y Gen. | Date Filed: 2010-12-28T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: area designated by the warden."See also s. 944.115(5), Fla. Stat., authorizing the Department of Corrections

BDO Seidman, LLP v. Bee

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2007-12-04T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 970 So. 2d 869

Snippet: Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). In Global

Mercedes Homes, Inc. v. Colon

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2007-08-10T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 966 So. 2d 10, 2007 WL 2274414

Snippet: concerning the formation of contracts. 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920. The second question is "arbitrability

O'Keefe Architects v. Ced Const. Partners

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2006-10-19T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 944 So. 2d 181

Snippet: .2d at 152 (quoting First Options, 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920), the Fourth District concluded that

Morton v. Polivchak

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2006-04-21T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 931 So. 2d 935

Snippet: ' evidence that they did so." Id. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920 (quoting AT & T Techs., Inc

Citigroup, Inc. v. Amodio

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2005-02-23T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 894 So. 2d 296

Snippet: Options of Chicago Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995) ("When

Morgan Stanley DW Inc. v. Halliday

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2004-04-14T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 873 So. 2d 400

Snippet: Options of Chicago Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995) ("Courts

REUTER RECYCLING OF FL. INC. v. City of Dania Beach

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2003-11-25T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 859 So. 2d 1271

Snippet: First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995)). An ambiguity

Gustavsson v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2003-06-04T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 850 So. 2d 570

Snippet: ; evidence that they did so." 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920. Consequently, the Supreme Court stated

KW Brown and Co. v. McCutchen

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2002-06-26T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 819 So. 2d 977, 2002 WL 1369866

Snippet: 4th DCA 2000) (citing First Options, 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920). Courts should not assume that the…so. See id. (citing First Options, 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920). The parties agree that there is no

Rintin Corp., SA v. Domar, Ltd.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2000-08-16T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 766 So. 2d 407

Snippet: Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995), the Supreme

Party Yards, Inc. v. Templeton

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2000-01-06T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 751 So. 2d 121

Snippet: Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). The issue

Romano v. Goodlette Office Park Ltd.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1997-09-19T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 700 So. 2d 62

Snippet: and unmistakable agreement to do so. 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. at 1924. Contractual silence or ambiguity