Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...[who] is intoxicated, profane, lewd, or brawling[] [or] who indulges in any language or conduct which disturbs the peace and comfort of other guests or which injures the reputation, dignity, or standing of the establishment.” Fla. Stat. § 14 509.141(1). Section 509.141(2) does require that the operator “notify such guest that the establishment no longer desires to entertain the guest and ....

...request that such guest immediately depart from the establishment . . . . [either] orally or in writing,” but that notification may be done by a law enforcement officer. See State v. Williams, 751 So. 2d 170, 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (stating that motel guest was lawfully ejected under Fla. Stat. § 509.141 when a police officer notified him that the motel wanted him to leave). The Zivojinovichs argue that it is a jury question whether Justin’s actions gave the Ritz the right to eject him under the Florida statute....

...We disagree. There is no genuine issue of material fact about whether his behavior was “profane,” “lewd,” “disturb[ed] the peace and comfort of other guests,” or “injure[d] the reputation, dignity, or standing” of the Ritz. See Fla. Stat. § 509.141(1)....

...The motion was denied and the petitioners were placed on probation under Chapter 948, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. In denying the motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge stated: "The Court has studied this particular law, the Florida Statute known as 509.141, and I find nothing in this law that has anything to do with color....

...They may refuse to serve or entertain such persons and be within the laws." They thereupon appealed to the Circuit Court of Dade County seeking review of the misdemeanor conviction. Article V, Section 6, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The record reveals that the petitioners were charged and found guilty of a violation of Section 509.141(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to leave a restaurant after being requested so to do....

...Our examination of the record does not reflect that these contentions were raised in the trial court. The matter was considered by the *5 circuit judge acting in his appellate capacity. He entered a judgment stating that he was "of the opinion that Section 509.141 of the Florida Statutes is a valid exercise of the sovereignty of the State of Florida and that its application to the appellants in this case does not deprive them of any of their rights under the Constitutions of the United States o...

...on the validity of the statute the initial appeal should have been brought directly to this Court instead of to the circuit court. The record from which we have quoted above indicates that the trial judge did consider and passed upon the validity of Section 509.141(3), Florida Statutes....

...and discharged. Section 713.69, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., makes it unlawful for any person to remove any property which is impressed with a Section 713.68 lien. HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS It should be stated at the outset that this case does not concern Section 509.141, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., nor any provision of §§ 713.67, 713.68, and 713.69 as they pertain to hotels....

...nable search or seizure. Once Mr. Jacquay informed Mr. Green that his right to the room had terminated for failure to pay the room rent, and denied him entry, he had given him oral notice and ejected him as an "undesirable guest," as contemplated by section 509.141(2), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...77, 79-81, 113 S.Ct. 1936, 1938-39, 123 L.Ed.2d 635 (1993); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)." State v. Setzler, 667 So.2d 343, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). [2] Section 509.141(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides: The operator of any public lodging establishment......

...1961, 132 So.2d 3. Robinson and others were found to be guilty of a misdemeanor in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County. In denying a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge expressly sustained the validity of Section 509.141, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ope that there will be no repetition of the procedure which was undertaken in the instant case. We find it unnecessary to engage in any prolonged discussion of the merits of the case. The sole point presented is the matter of the validity vel non of Section 509.141, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...tion of privacy in it— before the initial entry and accompanying protective sweep, which officers 9 There is one loose end. Ross argues that he had a continuing possessory interest in Room 113 due to the motel’s failure to honor Fla. Stat. § 509.141(1), which states that “[t]he operator of any public lodging establishment ....

...prior to checkout.” The statute requires a hotel “operator [to] . . . notify such guest that the establishment no longer desires to entertain the guest and shall request that such guest immediately depart from the establishment”—if the guest doesn’t comply, he is guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor. Id. § 509.141(2)–(3)....

...his room, he still “had a continuing possessory interest in Room 113 . . . [and] hotel management did not possess the legal authority to consent to the search.” Reply Br. of Appellant at 10. We agree with the government that nothing in § 509.141 justifies the conclusion that Ross continued to enjoy an exclusive right to occupy an unpaid-for room absent formal notice. Rather, the hotel’s noncompliance with the statute simply means that Ross couldn’t be charged with misdemeanor trespassing for his holdover....

judgment on the issue of the application of Florida Statute 509.141, F.S.A. as a defense to the cause of action

...rivacy based on an uncommunicated and ethereal policy, pattern, or practice would only obscure matters. 7 There is one loose end. Ross argues that he had a continuing possessory interest in Room 113 due to the motel’s failure to honor Fla. Stat. § 509.141(1), which states that “[t]he operator of any public lodging establishment ....

...prior to checkout.” The statute requires a hotel “operator [to] . . . notify such guest that the establishment no longer desires to entertain the guest and shall request that such guest immediately depart from the establishment”—if the guest doesn’t comply, he is guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor. Id. § 509.141(2)–(3)....

...his room, he still “had a continuing possessory interest in Room 113 . . . [and] hotel management did not possess the legal authority to consent to the search.” Reply Br. of Appellant at 10. We agree with the government that nothing in § 509.141 justifies the conclusion that Ross continued to enjoy an exclusive right to occupy an unpaid-for room absent formal notice. Rather, the hotel’s noncompliance with the statute simply means that Ross couldn’t be charged with misdemeanor trespassing for his holdover....

...btain lodging as a minor or reside in lodging as an unaccompanied minor. Florida's statutes, seemingly, do not mandate a minimum age for making hotel reservations. Instead, Florida statutes prescribe the means for ejecting undesirable guests. See § 509.141, Fla. Stat. (2016). A person can only be guilty of a crime under this statute if he remains after management asked him to leave. See § 509.141(3)....

...The initial search in that case was conducted by the hotel manager who was not a government agent subject to the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 315. More importantly, Mr. Green had already been ejected before the police conducted their search. Id. at 313; see also §§ 509.141(2) ("The operator of any public lodging establishment or public food service establishment shall notify such guest that the establishment no longer desires to entertain the guest and shall request that such guest immediately depart from...

...bandon it *172 voluntarily. We disagree. We hold that the officer acted lawfully, and thus did not “force” Williams to abandon his property. The officer told Williams the motel wanted him to leave. The motel lawfully ejected Williams pursuant to section 509.141, Florida Statutes (1999), which provides: (1) The operator of any public lodging establishment ......

...[[Image here]] (Emphasis added.) Thus, contrary to the trial court’s ruling in this ease, the Palm Aire Motel could terminate Williams’ tenancy if, in the opinion of the operator, his continued stay would be detrimental to the establishment. Under subsection 509.141(2), the motel had no obligation to refund the unused portion of Williams’ advance payment, since he had already occupied the room for a portion of the twenty-four-hour period....

...A search incident to the arrest uncovered crack cocaine inside an eyeglass case, a bag of cocaine- inside a sock, and glass pipes in the motel room. Whether the officers lawfully entered the motel room and arrested Brown turns on the application of section 509.141, Florida Statutes (2003). Section 509.141(2) authorizes the operator of any public lodging establishment to terminate the stay of an undesirable guest if the operator, “meets two requirements.” Kent v....

...Wood, 235 So.2d 60, 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). First, the operator must notify the guest, either orally or in writing, “that the establishment no longer desires to entertain the guest” and “request that such guest immediately depart from the establishment.” § 509.141(2)....

...e is given, tender to such guest the unused portion of the advance payment; however, the establishment may withhold payment for each full day that the guest has been entertained at the establishment for any portion of the 24-hour period of such day. § 509.141(2) (emphasis added). Section 509.141(3) makes it a second degree misdemeanor for a guest to “remain[ ] or attempt! ] to remain in” a motel after being requested to leave pursuant to subsection (2). Under section 509.141(4), it is the “duty” of a law enforcement officer, upon the request of an operator of a public lodging establishment, “to place under arrest and take into custody for violation of this section any guest who violates subsection (3) in the presence of the officer.” . In this case, the motel manager did not tender Brown the unused portion of his cash payment at the time the manager gave the oral notice to vacate. Because section 509.141 “is penal in nature,” it “must be strictly construed.” Kent, 235 So.2d at 63 ; see § 775.021(1), Fla....

...Here, the motel manager did not tender any refund to Brown at the time of the request to vacate. This noncompliance with the statute means that Brown did not commit a misdemeanor by remaining in the room. Therefore, the police were without authority to make an arrest under section 509.141(4)....

...4th DCA 2003) (noting that a person cannot challenge a conviction for resisting arrest with violence on the basis that the arrest itself is illegal). Because there was no tender of payment in this case, we do not rule on what type of conduct constitutes sufficient “tender” within the meaning of section .509.141(2)....

...and has not been requested by the management to leave for any valid or legal reason.” (quoting Sheff v. State, 301 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974))). A hotel guest has no longer has an expectation of privacy in his hotel room when he has been lawfully ejected from the hotel. Section 509.141, Florida Statutes, provides the permissible bases and procedure for the ejection of undesirable hotel guests: (1) The operator of any public lodging establishment ....

...During the 911 call, the housekeeping supervisor stressed, “we just need him out.” Based on these facts, the trial court did not err in its conclusion that Williams’ conduct “disturb[ed] the peace and comfort of other guests” and “injure[d] the reputation, dignity, or standing of the establishment.” See § 509.141(1), Fla....

...entertainment of [Williams] would be detrimental to” the hotel. See id. And Williams’ apparent intoxication also supported the decision to eject him from the hotel. See id. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that the hotel had lawful grounds to eject Williams under subsection 509.141(1). The State also presented competent, substantial evidence to show that the hotel provided the notice required under subsection 509.141(2), Florida Statutes, that Williams should depart from the hotel....

...In the recording, she stated, “he shut the door in my face when I asked him to leave.” This evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the hotel staff provided Williams with sufficient notice of their desire for him to leave and, thus, properly ejected Williams under the statute. See § 509.141(2), Fla....

...e search or seizure. Once Mr. Jacquay informed Mr. Green that his right to the room had terminated for failure to pay the room rent, and denied him entry, he had given him oral notice and ejected him as an “undesirable guest,” as contemplated by section 509.141(2), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...1936, 1938-39 , 123 L.Ed.2d 635 (1993); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).” State v. Setzler, 667 So.2d 343, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). . Section 509.141(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides: The operator of any public lodging establishment ......

...Miami Beach Police Department and officers surveilled the hotel. The next day, Arosemena asked Captain Larry Bornstein, who was standing across the street from the hotel, to help evict Collins and other occupants from his hotel room. See Fla. Stat. § 509.141 (1); Zivojinovich v....