Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 812.15 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 812.15 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 812.15 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 812.15

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 812
THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES
View Entire Chapter
812.15 Unauthorized reception of communications services; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Cable operator” means a communications service provider who provides some or all of its communications services pursuant to a “cable television franchise” issued by a “franchising authority,” as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. s. 522(9) and (10) (1992).
(b) “Cable system” means any communications service network, system, or facility owned or operated by a cable operator.
(c) “Communications device” means any type of electronic mechanism, transmission line or connections and appurtenances thereto, instrument, device, machine, equipment, or software that is capable of intercepting, transmitting, acquiring, decrypting, or receiving any communications service, or any part, accessory, or component thereof, including any computer circuit, splitter, connector, switches, transmission hardware, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, electronic mechanism, or other component, accessory, or part of any communications device which is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, decryption, or reception of any communications service.
(d) “Communications service” means any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation by any cable system or by any radio, fiber optic, photooptical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, satellite, microwave, data transmission, Internet-based, or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, including, but not limited to, any electronic, data, video, audio, Internet access, microwave, and radio communications, transmissions, signals, and services, and any such communications, transmissions, signals, and services lawfully provided for a charge or compensation, directly or indirectly by or through any of those networks, systems, or facilities.
(e) “Communications service provider” means:
1. Any person or entity owning or operating any cable system or any fiber optic, photooptical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, satellite, wireless, microwave, radio, data transmission, or Internet-based distribution network, system, or facility.
2. Any person or entity providing any lawful communications service, whether directly or indirectly, as a reseller or licensee, by or through any such distribution network, system, or facility.
(f) “Manufacture, development, or assembly of a communications device” means to make, produce, develop, or assemble a communications device or any part, accessory, or component thereof, or to modify, alter, program, or reprogram any communications device so that it is capable of facilitating the commission of a violation of this section.
(g) “Multipurpose device” means any communications device that is capable of more than one function and includes any component thereof.
(2)(a) A person may not knowingly intercept, receive, decrypt, disrupt, transmit, retransmit, or acquire access to any communications service without the express authorization of the cable operator or other communications service provider, as stated in a contract or otherwise, with the intent to defraud the cable operator or communications service provider, or to knowingly assist others in doing those acts with the intent to defraud the cable operator or other communications provider. For the purpose of this section, the term “assist others” includes:
1. The sale, transfer, license, distribution, deployment, lease, manufacture, development, or assembly of a communications device for the purpose of facilitating the unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, or access to any communications service offered by a cable operator or any other communications service provider; or
2. The sale, transfer, license, distribution, deployment, lease, manufacture, development, or assembly of a communications device for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any effective technology, device, or software, or any component or part thereof, used by a cable operator or other communications service provider to protect any communications service from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, disruption, access, decryption, transmission, or retransmission.
(b) Any person who willfully violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3)(a) Any person who willfully violates paragraph (2)(a), paragraph (4)(a), or subsection (5) and who has been previously convicted of any such provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) Any person who willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain violates paragraph (2)(a), paragraph (4)(a), or subsection (5) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4)(a) Any person who intentionally possesses a communications device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of committing, or assisting others in committing, a violation of paragraph (2)(a) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) Any person who intentionally possesses five or more communications devices and knows or has reason to know that the design of such devices renders them primarily useful for committing, or assisting others in committing, a violation of paragraph (2)(a) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) Any person who intentionally possesses fifty or more communications devices and knows or has reason to know that the design of such devices renders them primarily useful for committing, or assisting others in committing, a violation of paragraph (2)(a) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) It is unlawful for any person to place in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication, including any electronic medium, any advertisement that, in whole or in part, promotes the sale of a communications device if the person placing the advertisement knows or has reason to know that the device is designed to be primarily useful for committing, or assisting others in committing, a violation of paragraph (2)(a). Any person who violates this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(6) All fines shall be imposed as provided in s. 775.083 for each communications device involved in the prohibited activity or for each day a defendant is in violation of this section.
(7) The court shall, in addition to any other sentence authorized by law, sentence a person convicted of violating this section to make restitution as authorized by law.
(8) Upon conviction of a defendant for violating this section, the court may, in addition to any other sentence authorized by law, direct that the defendant forfeit any communications device in the defendant’s possession or control which was involved in the violation for which the defendant was convicted.
(9) A violation of paragraph (2)(a) may be deemed to have been committed at any place where the defendant manufactures, develops, or assembles any communications devices involved in the violation, or assists others in these acts, or any place where the communications device is sold or delivered to a purchaser or recipient. It is not a defense to a violation of paragraph (2)(a) that some of the acts constituting the violation occurred outside the state.
(10)(a) Any person aggrieved by any violation of this section may bring a civil action in a circuit court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) The court may:
1. Grant temporary and final injunctions on terms it finds reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of this section in conformity with the principles that govern the granting of injunctive relief from threatened loss or damage in other civil cases, except that a showing of special or irreparable damages to the person need not be made.
2. At any time while the action is pending, order the impounding, on reasonable terms, of any communications device that is in the custody or control of the violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in the alleged violation of this section, and may grant other equitable relief, including the imposition of a constructive trust, as the court considers reasonable and necessary.
3. Award damages pursuant to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
4. Direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorney’s fees, to an aggrieved party who prevails.
5. As part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation of this section, order the remedial modification or destruction of any communications device, or any other device or equipment, involved in the violation which is in the custody or control of the violator or has been impounded under subparagraph 2.
(c) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed in accordance with subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2.:
1. The party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.
a. Actual damages include the retail value of all communications services to which the violator had unauthorized access as a result of the violation and the retail value of any communications service illegally available to each person to whom the violator directly or indirectly provided or distributed a communications device. In proving actual damages, the party aggrieved must prove only that the violator manufactured, distributed, or sold a communications device and is not required to prove that any such device was actually used in violation of this section.
b. In determining the violator’s profits, the party aggrieved must prove only the violator’s gross revenue, and the violator must prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation.
2. Upon election of such damages at any time before final judgment is entered, the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each communications device involved in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 for each such device, as the court considers just.
(d) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory under this section, by an amount of not more than $50,000 for each communications device involved in the action and for each day the defendant is in violation of this section.
(e) In any case in which the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100.
(11) This section shall not be construed to impose any criminal or civil liability upon any state or local law enforcement agency; any state or local government agency, municipality, or authority; or any communications service provider unless such entity is acting knowingly and with intent to defraud a communications service provider as defined in this section.
(12) A person that manufactures, produces, assembles, designs, sells, distributes, licenses, or develops a multipurpose device shall not be in violation of this section unless that person acts knowingly and with an intent to defraud a communications services provider and the multipurpose device:
(a) Is manufactured, developed, assembled, produced, designed, distributed, sold, or licensed for the primary purpose of committing a violation of this section;
(b) Has only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than for the commission of any violation of this section; or
(c) Is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for the purpose of committing any violation of this section.
(13) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts, software code, or components for, a communications device provide for a response to any particular technology, device, or software, or any component or part thereof, used by the provider, owner, or licensee of any communications service or of any data, audio or video programs, or transmissions, to protect any such communications, data, audio or video service, programs, or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission, or retransmission.
History.—s. 3, ch. 92-155; s. 1241, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 98-214; s. 1, ch. 99-261; s. 1, ch. 2003-186.

F.S. 812.15 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.15 on CourtListener

Amendments to 812.15


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 812.15
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S812.15 5 - FRAUD - AD TO PROMOTE SALE OF INTERCEPT DEVICE - M: F
S812.15 5 - FRAUD - AD PROMOTE SALE OF INTERCEPT DEVICE FINAN GAIN - F: T
S812.15 5 - FRAUD - AD PROMOTE SALE OF INTERCEPT DEVICE SUBSQ OFF - F: T
S812.15 2a - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVC W/O AUTH SUBSQ OFF - F: T
S812.15 2a - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVC FINANCIAL GAIN - F: T
S812.15 2a - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVCS W/O AUTH - M: F
S812.15 3a - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVC W/O AUTH SUBSQ OFF - F: T
S812.15 3a - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMM SVCS SUBSQ OFF - F: T
S812.15 3a - FRAUD - ADV PROMOTE SALE OF INTERCEPT DEVICE SUBSQ OFF - F: T
S812.15 3b - FRAUD - RENUMBERED. SEE REC #4106 - F: T
S812.15 3b - FRAUD - INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVCS FINANCIAL GAIN - F: T
S812.15 3b - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMM SVCS FINAN GAIN - F: T
S812.15 3b - FRAUD - ADV PROMOTE SALE INTERCEPT DEVICE FINAN GAIN - F: T
S812.15 4a - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMM SVCS SUBSQ OFF - F: T
S812.15 4a - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE INTERCEPT COMM SVCS FINAN GAIN - F: T
S812.15 4a - FRAUD - POSS DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMMUNICATION SVCS - M: F
S812.15 4b - FRAUD - POSS 5 MORE DEVICES INTERCEPT COMM SVCS - F: T
S812.15 4c - FRAUD - POSS 50 MORE DEVICES INTERCEPT COMM SVCS - F: S

Cases Citing Statute 812.15

Total Results: 81  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000).

Cited 311 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2000 WL 178052

amends the retail and farm theft statute (section 812.015) to reflect the changes in the theft statute;
Copy

Marlene Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 432 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005).

Cited 111 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28029

of resisting a merchant under Florida Statutes § 812.015(6). The 2001 Information charging Jaggernauth
Copy

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson, 472 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1985).

Cited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 338, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3503

award of punitive damages. In the enactment of section 812.015, Florida Statutes, Florida has recognized that
Copy

Weissman v. K-Mart Corp., 396 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Cited 32 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

officers who comply with the requirements of Section 812.015(3), Florida Statutes (1979), are not civilly
Copy

Royal v. State, 490 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1986).

Cited 31 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 274

or a benefit therefrom." (Emphasis added.) Section 812.015, which defines retail theft as "the taking
Copy

Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Cited 21 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

021" when the statute cited should have been F.S. 812.015. The second defect was that the complaint had
Copy

Rivers v. Dillards Dept. Store, Inc., 698 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Cited 18 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 564201

illegal activity on the day in question. Thus section 812.015, Florida Statutes, did not provide a basis
Copy

Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 941 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996).

Cited 17 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14792, 1996 WL 566888

¶ 75) alleges that Miller violated Fla. Stat. § 812.015(1) instead of Section 812.014(1). This must be
Copy

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01, 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 149, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 302

restraint under stated circumstances, e.g., F.S. 812.015, 901.15, 901.151 (2006). 407.9 BURDEN OF PROOF
Copy

Stuckey v. State, 972 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Cited 13 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 4269024

commits a theft of the merchant's property. See § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (2004); see also Lane v. State
Copy

Rodriguez v. State, 29 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11580, 2009 WL 2514168

only of petit theft based on probable cause. See § 812.015(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). Similarly, an officer
Copy

Lane v. State, 867 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Cited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 358112

to recover stolen property in violation of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2002), arguing that the
Copy

Johnson v. State, 855 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22188040

included offense of resisting a merchant, section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1997), a first degree
Copy

Bernard v. State, 859 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22734841

...However, a defendant cannot be required to pay restitution in excess of the damage his criminal conduct caused the victim. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla.1977). Bernard pled nolo contendere to dealing in one stolen cable box. Bernard was not charged under section 812.15, Florida Statutes (2002), which makes the unauthorized reception of cable television services a crime....
Copy

Emshwiller v. State, 462 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1985).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 34

is also contained in the retail theft statute. § 812.015(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1981). The jury found petitioner
Copy

In Re Stand. Jury Inst. in Crim. Cases-Report 2007-01, 965 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2007).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 530, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1535, 2007 WL 2438370

...ause for the condition of physical or mental incapacity—with the term "fundamental" to modify "disability." Accordingly, to bring instruction 11.11 into accord with section 825.101(4), we have substituted "developmental" for "fundamental." Finally, section 812.15, Florida Statutes (2006), pertaining to the unauthorized reception of communications services, sets out two distinct offenses: unauthorized acquisition of communication services; and unlawful possession of a communication device. See §§ 812.15(2)(a); 812.15(4). Following substantial amendments to section 812.15 by the Legislature, see ch....
...2003-186, Laws of Fla., the Committee proposed two new instructions: 14.5— Theft of Communication Services, and 14.6—Unauthorized Possession of Communications Devices. We have modified instruction 14.5 to include both the statutory definition for "Communications device," see § 812.15(1)(c), and the degree enhancement provision in section 812.15(3)(a)....
...- Exposure of sexual organs 800.03 11.9 --------------------------------------------------- Comment This instruction was adopted in 2007. See Jennings v. State, 920 So.2d 32 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). 14.5 THEFT LARCENY OF CABLE TV COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 812.15(2)(a), Fla....
...If you find the defendant guilty of unlawful reception of communications service, you must further determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the defendant acted for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain. No Defense. § 812.15(9), Fla....
...on, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 2007. 14.6 UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION OF COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE § 812.15(4)(a-c), Fla....
...Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 2007. NOTES [1] Various grammatical and technical modifications have also been made. [2] The degree enhancement under section 812.15(3)(a) provides that "[a]ny person who willfully violates paragraph (2)(a), paragraph (4)(a), or subsection (5) and who has been previously convicted of any such provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084." Instruction 14.5 as proposed by the Committee included the degree enhancement under section 812.15(3)(b), providing that "[a]ny person who willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain violates paragraph (2)(a), paragraph (4)(a), or subsection (5) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s....
Copy

Mediaone of Delaware, Inc. v. E & a Beepers & Cellulars, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D. Fla. 1998).

Cited 5 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22203, 1998 WL 1032571

...intiff's scrambled signals by persons not authorized or paying for Plaintiff's services. Defendants' conduct, in modifying, manufacturing, selling, and distributing the pirate decoders, is violative of §§ 553 and 605 of the Communications Act, and § 812.15(4)(b)(1) of the Florida Statutes....
Copy

Canto v. JB Ivey & Co., 595 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2287, 1992 WL 42456

liability for false imprisonment pursuant to Section 812.015, Florida Statutes (1989). Subsection (3)(a)
Copy

Hughes v. State, 400 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

potential applicability of the lesser penalty of § 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978), governing battery
Copy

Royal v. State, 452 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

statutory definition of "retail theft" in section 812.015(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981), which certainly
Copy

Epps v. State, 728 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 69673

retail purchase or sale of any merchandise." § 812.015(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). The evidence clearly
Copy

Peterson v. State, 24 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19772, 2009 WL 4877693

misdemeanor offense of resisting a merchant. See § 812.015(6). Both the State's case and Peterson's theory
Copy

Duval v. State, 688 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 86057

charge of resisting a merchant, pursuant to section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1993), as a lesser included
Copy

Emshwiller v. State, 443 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

"retail theft" of merchandise, as defined in section 812.015, Florida Statutes (1981), where value is alleged
Copy

State v. Jones, 461 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1984).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

section 901.34, Florida Statutes (1975) [here section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981)], a policelike
Copy

McCarthren v. State, 635 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 140751

§ 812.014(2)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] The Phoenix Program
Copy

Jack Eckerd Corp. v. Smith, 558 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1570, 1990 WL 25945

mistaken effort to comply with the spirit of section 812.015(3), Florida Statutes (1985), which gives a
Copy

Stewart v. State, 790 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 294423

included offense of resisting a merchant. See § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (1997). I concur in the judgment
Copy

Cenatis v. State, 120 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3811766, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11593

antishoplifting device countermeasure is prohibited by section 812.015(7), Florida Statutes (2010): It is unlawful
Copy

Jacqueline E. Morris v. Albertson's, Inc., a Delaware Corp., 705 F.2d 406 (11th Cir. 1983).

Cited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28471

it was immune from suit under Florida statute § 812.015. That provision stipulates that: (3)(a) a
Copy

Pearce v. US Fid. & Guar. Co., 476 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2326

employees and law enforcement authorities by section 812.015(3), Florida Statutes, may help us determine
Copy

Rimondi v. State, 89 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2010866, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9074

theft in concert with others in violation of section 812.015(8)(a). Rimondi raises two issues on appeal;
Copy

Stuckey v. State, 907 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1412085

applicable to the present case, is described in section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2004), as follows: (6)
Copy

Polite v. State, 933 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1627460

Stat. (2005)(fleeing or eluding officer);[9] § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (2005)(resisting officer's recovery
Copy

Hood v. Zayre Corp., 529 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 73947

Davis against her will. Zayre's answer raised section 812.015, Florida Statutes (1985) (immunity for merchants)
Copy

CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Kimtron, Inc., 47 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Fla. 1999).

Cited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7118, 1999 WL 304613

...("CSC") brings this action against Defendants alleging they engaged in the illegal practice of selling pirate decoders that allow their users to intercept CSC's cable signals. CSC filed a three-count amended complaint alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553(a)(1) and 605(e)(4), and FlaStat. § 812.15....
...4; Mitsubishi, 14 F.3d at 1518. CSC's request for a constructive trust in this case is inappropriate. The statutes under which CSC brings its claims all provide legal remedies of damages, should CSC prevail on its claims. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 553(c)(3)(A), 605(e); Fla.Stat. § [812.15(4)(c)]....
Copy

Lamb v. State, 679 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9249, 1996 WL 496990

merchant. Pursuant to the 1992 amendment of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes, the charge of resisting
Copy

F.T. v. State, 146 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14390, 2014 WL 4628512

and more specific statutory treatment under section 812.015. Under the general theft provisions, “value”
Copy

Symone Justine Bent v. State of Florida, 257 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

presence? Because the legislature enacted section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that
Copy

State of Florida v. Thomas Marvin Lord, 150 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

officers did not have the authority under section 812.015 to arrest defendants. See State v. Daniels
Copy

Snell v. State, 932 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 3179890

pockets, in violation of section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). Section 812.015(3)(a) provides, in
Copy

State v. Blunt, 744 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15623, 1999 WL 1062457

antishoplifting or inventory control device.” § 812.015(1)©, Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added).1 *1259In
Copy

Schaeffer v. State, 779 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1714481

not used for a self-defense purpose. [4] Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1997), makes it a first
Copy

Burton v. State, 844 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6732, 2003 WL 21032225

“reasonable effort .. n to recover the property.” § 812.015(6). We disagree. Ms. Lane testified that she came
Copy

Sanders v. State, 654 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5411, 1995 WL 302312

version of the statute interpreted therein, section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1991), previously required
Copy

In re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—Report No. 2011-03, 95 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 2012).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 352, 2012 WL 2848895, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 961

sought to track the statutory language of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides
Copy

Smith v. State, 566 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 125099

NOTES [1] § 812.014, Fla. Stat. (1987). [2] § 812.015, Fla. Stat. (1987). [3] § 843.02, Fla. Stat.
Copy

Maldanado v. State, 691 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3262, 1997 WL 163607

offense of resisting a merchant pursuant to section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1995), as a lesser-included
Copy

F.T. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

and more specific statutory treatment under section 812.015. Under the general theft provisions
Copy

Smith v. State, 743 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13175, 1999 WL 790717

basically, that I instruct the jury that Florida Statute 812.015 provides: ... “A Merchant who has probable
Copy

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases - Report 2017-04 (Fla. 2017).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

properly instructs upon the offense defined under section 812.015, Florida Statutes (2017) (Retail and farm
Copy

Williams v. State, 745 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15149, 1999 WL 1036513

resisting a retail merchant in violation of section 812.015(6). We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Copy

Pollock v. Albertson's, Inc., 458 So. 2d 74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2295, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15765

motion for summary judgment on the basis of section 812.015(3-5), Florida Statutes (1981), which permits
Copy

C.G. v. State, 981 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 6939

appellant guilty of evasion of transit fare under section 812.015(l)(j), Florida Statutes, because the state
Copy

CG v. State, 981 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 1968316

appellant guilty of evasion of transit fare under section 812.015(1)(j), Florida Statutes, because the state
Copy

K.C. v. State, 524 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1988).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 300, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 550, 1988 WL 43386

to recover the merchandise, in violation of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides
Copy

K.C. v. State, 507 So. 2d 769 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1341, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8454

employees to recover the candy, in violation of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983).1 He was adjudicated
Copy

McClover v. State, 125 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1980172, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7870

Convicted of felony retail theft in violation of section 812.015(8)(a), Florida Statutes, Toccara McClover appeals
Copy

Coffie v. State, 562 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4290, 1990 WL 80798

with resisting a merchant in violation of section 812.-015(6), Florida Statutes (1985). A jury found
Copy

Starks v. State, 637 So. 2d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5305

misdemeanor of resisting a merchant in violation of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1991). HALL, A.C.J.,
Copy

Jones v. State, 434 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20916

store detective for shoplifting pursuant to Section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981) and accused
Copy

McRae v. State, 679 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7857, 1996 WL 417532

Section 784.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). . Section 812.015, Fla.Stat. (1993). . In Young v. State, 663
Copy

Milian v. State, 92 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2913223, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11693

theft in concert with others in violation of section 812.015(8)(a). For the reasons set forth in *305Ms
Copy

Tironi v. Pantry Pride Enter., Inc., 519 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 250, 1988 WL 4533

2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); § 812.015(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985); § 812.015(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985).
Copy

Henry v. State, 864 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 824, 2004 WL 258565

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 812.015(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002); Scott v. State, 519 So.2d 734 (Fla. 3d
Copy

Advisory Opinion to the Governor Re: Implementation of Amendment 4, The Voting Restoration Amendment (Fla. 2020).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...courts are required to impose restitution as part of the sentence for specified crimes.” Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1270 (2017). Certain legislative enactments also support including restitution within the meaning of “all terms of sentence.” See, e.g., § 812.15(7), Fla....
Copy

In Interest of JLP, 490 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 189, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5931

are compelled to agree with appellant that section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983), as written requires
Copy

In re W.L.B., 502 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 446, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6622

contendere to a charge of resisting a merchant, Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1985), reserving the
Copy

Alexander Martinez-rivero v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

antishoplifting device countermeasure in violation of section 812.015(7), Florida Statutes. On appeal, Martinez-Rivero
Copy

Malik Mocombe v. The State of Florida (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

for a retail establishment, in violation of section 812.015(7), Florida Statutes (2022). Because
Copy

Raymond Anthony Lee v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

convenience store. We affirm, concluding that section 812.015(4), Florida Statutes (2022), gave the officers
Copy

Amendments to Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure, 613 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1993).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 113, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 172, 1993 WL 32299

...d on a person over the age of 65); ch. 92-73, §§ 3, 4, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 943.0585(1) and 943.059(1), Fla. Stat., relative to expunction and sealing of criminal records); ch. 92-79, §§ 1, 6, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 812.014(2)(d) and 812.15, Fla....
...(creates §§ 790.115 and 810.095, Fla.Stat., regarding possession of weapons or firearms on school property); ch. 92-141, § 1, Laws of Fla. (adding definitions of proscribed ammunition to § 790.31, Fla.Stat.); ch. 92-155, § 3, Laws of Fla. (creating § 812.15, Fla.Stat., regarding unauthorized reception of cable services); and ch....
Copy

Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. v. E & A Beepers Corp., 188 F.R.D. 662 (S.D. Fla. 1999).

Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15111, 1999 WL 756576

...Plaintiff brings suit seeking declaratory relief, monetary and/or statutory damages, and full costs for Defendants’ alleged violation of federal [ 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 (a)(1) in Count I, and 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 (a) and 605(e)(4) in Count II] and state [Section 812.15 of the Florida Statutes in Count III] law....
...However, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it raises a novel or complex issue of state law or substantially predominates over the federal claim(s). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) (West 1998). Defendants argue that, since Section 812.15 of the Florida Statutes has been law for only a year, its novelty counsels against this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction. See Defs.’ Mots., at 3-4. Defendants contend further that Section 812.15 requires completely different elements of proof that are separate and distinct from, as well as predominant over, the federal claims at issue. See id. In relevant part, Section 812.15, covering the crime of unauthorized reception of cable television services, provides the following: (2)(a) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable syst...
...communications service offered over a cable system in violation of this section. (4)(a) Any person aggrieved by any violation of this section may bring a civil action in a circuit court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 812.15 (West 1998)....
Copy

K. M. S. v. State, 402 So. 2d 593 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20932

merchant) of the juvenile petition was in error. Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1979), under which appellant
Copy

J.B. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10497

(1997) and resisting merchandise recovery, section 812.015(g), Florida Statutes (1997). Because the latter
Copy

JB v. State, 715 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 518564

(1997) and resisting merchandise recovery, section 812.015(g), Florida Statutes (1997). Because the latter
Copy

Tobe v. State, 435 So. 2d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20053

value contained in the retail theft statute, section 812.015(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1981). Under the retail
Copy

Atmore v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

included offense of resisting a merchant under section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2024). For the reasons
Copy

Raulerson v. State of Florida (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

the person is trespassing on school property); § 812.015(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (authorizing “a merchant, a
Copy

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—report No. 2014-07, 163 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 221, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 927, 2015 WL 1932145

5 RESISTING RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Resisting
Copy

McClover v. State, 217 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 1399821, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5358

commit retail theft is retail theft. Id. (citing § 812.015(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (2012)). We also confirmed that

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.