Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 812.015 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 812.015 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 812.015

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 812
THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 812.015
812.015 Retail and farm theft; transit fare evasion; mandatory fine; alternative punishment; detention and arrest; exemption from liability for false arrest; resisting arrest; penalties.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Merchandise” means any personal property, capable of manual delivery, displayed, held, or offered for retail sale by a merchant.
(b) “Merchant” means an owner or operator, or the agent, consignee, employee, lessee, or officer of an owner or operator, of any premises or apparatus used for retail purchase or sale of any merchandise.
(c) “Value of merchandise” means the sale price of the merchandise at the time it was stolen or otherwise removed, depriving the owner of her or his lawful right to ownership and sale of said item.
(d) “Retail theft” means the taking possession of or carrying away of merchandise, property, money, or negotiable documents; altering or removing a label, universal product code, or price tag; transferring merchandise from one container to another; or removing a shopping cart, with intent to deprive the merchant of possession, use, benefit, or full retail value.
(e) “Farm produce” means livestock or any item grown, produced, or manufactured by a person owning, renting, or leasing land for the purpose of growing, producing, or manufacturing items for sale or personal use, either part time or full time.
(f) “Farmer” means a person who is engaging in the growing or producing of farm produce, milk products, honey, eggs, or meat, either part time or full time, for personal consumption or for sale and who is the owner or lessee of the land or a person designated in writing by the owner or lessee to act as her or his agent. No person defined as a farm labor contractor pursuant to s. 450.28 shall be designated to act as an agent for purposes of this section.
(g) “Farm theft” means the unlawful taking possession of any items that are grown or produced on land owned, rented, or leased by another person. The term includes the unlawful taking possession of equipment and associated materials used to grow or produce farm products as defined in s. 823.14(3)(e).
(h) “Antishoplifting or inventory control device” means a mechanism or other device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal from a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure, or from a protected area within such an enclosure, of specially marked or tagged merchandise. The term includes any electronic or digital imaging or any video recording or other film used for security purposes and the cash register tape or other record made of the register receipt.
(i) “Antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure” means any item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device.
(j) “Transit fare evasion” means the unlawful refusal to pay the appropriate fare for transportation upon a mass transit vehicle, or to evade the payment of such fare, or to enter any mass transit vehicle or facility by any door, passageway, or gate, except as provided for the entry of fare-paying passengers, and shall constitute petit theft as proscribed by this chapter.
(k) “Mass transit vehicle” means buses, rail cars, or fixed-guideway mover systems operated by, or under contract to, state agencies, political subdivisions of the state, or municipalities for the transportation of fare-paying passengers.
(l) “Transit agency” means any state agency, political subdivision of the state, or municipality which operates mass transit vehicles.
(m) “Trespass” means the violation as described in s. 810.08.
(2) Upon a second or subsequent conviction for petit theft from a merchant, farmer, or transit agency, the offender shall be punished as provided in s. 812.014(3), except that the court shall impose a fine of not less than $50 or more than $1,000. However, in lieu of such fine, the court may require the offender to perform public services designated by the court. In no event shall any such offender be required to perform fewer than the number of hours of public service necessary to satisfy the fine assessed by the court, as provided by this subsection, at the minimum wage prevailing in the state at the time of sentencing.
(3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.
(b) The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.
(c) The taking into custody and detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, if done in compliance with all the requirements of this subsection, shall not render such law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.
(4) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, either on or off the premises and without warrant, any person the officer has probable cause to believe unlawfully possesses, or is unlawfully using or attempting to use or has used or attempted to use, any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure or has committed theft in a retail or wholesale establishment or on commercial or private farm lands of a farmer or transit fare evasion or trespass.
(5)(a) A merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent who takes a person into custody, as provided in subsection (3), or who causes an arrest, as provided in subsection (4), of a person for retail theft, farm theft, transit fare evasion, or trespass shall not be criminally or civilly liable for false arrest or false imprisonment when the merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent has probable cause to believe that the person committed retail theft, farm theft, transit fare evasion, or trespass.
(b) If a merchant or merchant’s employee takes a person into custody as provided in this section, or acts as a witness with respect to any person taken into custody as provided in this section, the merchant or merchant’s employee may provide his or her business address rather than home address to any investigating law enforcement officer.
(6) An individual who, while committing or after committing theft of property, transit fare evasion, or trespass, resists the reasonable effort of a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent to recover the property or cause the individual to pay the proper transit fare or vacate the transit facility which the law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent had probable cause to believe the individual had concealed or removed from its place of display or elsewhere or perpetrated a transit fare evasion or trespass commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the individual did not know, or did not have reason to know, that the person seeking to recover the property was a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent. For purposes of this section the charge of theft and the charge of resisting may be tried concurrently.
(7) It is unlawful to possess, or use or attempt to use, any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise. Any person who possesses any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any person who uses or attempts to use any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) Except as provided in subsection (9), a person who commits retail theft commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the person:
(a) Individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, coordinates the activities of one or more individuals in committing the offense, which may occur through multiple acts of retail theft, in which the amount of each individual theft is aggregated within a 30-day period to determine the value of the property stolen and such value is $750 or more;
(b) Conspires with another person to commit retail theft with the intent to sell the stolen property for monetary or other gain, and subsequently takes or causes such property to be placed in the control of another person in exchange for consideration, in which the stolen property taken or placed within a 30-day period is aggregated to determine the value of the stolen property and such value is $750 or more;
(c) Individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, commits theft from more than one location within a 30-day period, in which the amount of each individual theft is aggregated to determine the value of the property stolen and such value is $750 or more;
(d) Acts in concert with one or more other individuals within one or more establishments to distract the merchant, merchant’s employee, or law enforcement officer in order to carry out the offense, or acts in other ways to coordinate efforts to carry out the offense and such value is $750 or more;
(e) Commits the offense through the purchase of merchandise in a package or box that contains merchandise other than, or in addition to, the merchandise purported to be contained in the package or box and such value is $750 or more; or
(f) Individually, or in concert with 1 or more other persons, commits 5 or more retail thefts within a 30-day period and in committing such thefts obtains or uses 10 or more items of merchandise, and the number of items stolen during each theft is aggregated within the 30-day period to determine the total number of items stolen, regardless of the value of such merchandise, and 2 or more of the thefts occur at different physical merchant locations.
(9) A person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the person:
(a) Violates subsection (8) and has previously been convicted of a violation of subsection (8) or of this subsection;
(b) Individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, coordinates the activities of one or more persons in committing the offense of retail theft, in which the amount of each individual theft within a 30-day period is aggregated to determine the value of the stolen property and such value is in excess of $3,000;
(c) Conspires with another person to commit retail theft with the intent to sell the stolen property for monetary or other gain, and subsequently takes or causes such property to be placed in control of another person in exchange for consideration, in which the stolen property taken or placed within a 30-day period is aggregated to have a value in excess of $3,000; or
(d) Individually, or in concert with 1 or more other persons, commits 5 or more retail thefts within a 30-day period and in committing such thefts obtains or uses 20 or more items of merchandise, and the number of items stolen during each theft is aggregated within the 30-day period to determine the total number of items stolen, regardless of the value of such merchandise, and 2 or more of the thefts occur at a different physical retail merchant location.
(10) If a person commits retail theft in more than one judicial circuit within a 30-day period, the value of the stolen property resulting from the thefts in each judicial circuit may be aggregated, and the person must be prosecuted by the Office of the Statewide Prosecutor in accordance with s. 16.56.
(11) The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) shall perform a study every 5 years to determine the appropriateness of the threshold amounts included in this section. The study’s scope must include, but need not be limited to, the crime trends related to theft offenses, the theft threshold amounts of other states in effect at the time of the study, the fiscal impact of any modifications to this state’s threshold amounts, and the effect on economic factors, such as inflation. The study must include options for amending the threshold amounts if the study finds that such amounts are inconsistent with current trends. In conducting the study, OPPAGA shall consult with the Office of Economic and Demographic Research in addition to other interested entities. OPPAGA shall submit a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by September 1 of every 5th year.
History.s. 2, ch. 78-348; s. 177, ch. 79-164; s. 1, ch. 80-379; s. 1, ch. 81-108; s. 1, ch. 81-163; s. 165, ch. 83-216; s. 2, ch. 86-161; s. 1, ch. 88-325; s. 40, ch. 91-110; s. 190, ch. 91-224; s. 2, ch. 92-79; s. 11, ch. 95-184; s. 1, ch. 96-366; s. 1820, ch. 97-102; s. 33, ch. 97-280; s. 3, ch. 2001-115; s. 2, ch. 2007-177; s. 63, ch. 2011-206; s. 18, ch. 2012-83; s. 37, ch. 2019-167; s. 5, ch. 2021-7; s. 64, ch. 2022-4; s. 1, ch. 2022-192.

F.S. 812.015 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.015 on Casetext

Amendments to 812.015


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 812.015
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S812.015 2 - SHOPLIFTING - REMOVED - M: F
S812.015 2 - LARC - REMOVED - M: F
S812.015 2 - LARC - REMOVED - M: F
S812.015 2 - LARC - REMOVED - F: T
S812.015 2 - LARC - REMOVED - F: T
S812.015 2 - LARC - REMOVED - F: T
S812.015 6 - RESIST OFFICER - REVISED. SEE REC # 7005 - M: F
S812.015 6 - CRIMES AGAINST PERSON - REVISED. SEE REC # 7005 - M: F
S812.015 6 - CRIMES AGAINST PERSON - REVISED. SEE REC # 7005 - M: F
S812.015 6 - LARC - RESIST ARREST COMM THEFT RESIST RECOV OF PROP - M: F
S812.015 7 - LARC - USE ANTI-SHOPLIFTING DEVICE - F: T
S812.015 7 - LARC - POSSESS ANTI-SHOPLIFTING DEVICE - F: T
S812.015 8 - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC #s 6006 6007 6008 6009 - F: T
S812.015 8a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8913 - F: T
S812.015 8a - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ OR COORDINATE W OTHERS - F: T
S812.015 8a - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ OR COORD W OTHERS PREV CONV - F: S
S812.015 8b - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8776 - F: T
S812.015 8b - LARC - RET THEFT CONSPIR SELL STOL PROP 750 DOL MORE - F: T
S812.015 8b - LARC - RETAIL THEFT SELL STOLEN PROP $750+ PREV CONV - F: S
S812.015 8c - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8777 - F: T
S812.015 8c - LARC - RETAIL THEFT 750 MORE DOLS MULTIPLE LOCATIONS - F: T
S812.015 8c - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ MULTIPLE LOCATION PREV CONV - F: S
S812.015 8d - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8778 - F: T
S812.015 8d - LARC - RETAIL THEFT 750 MORE DOLS OTHERS DISTRACT - F: T
S812.015 8d - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ OTHER DISTRACT PREV CONV - F: S
S812.015 8e - LARC - RETAIL THEFT 750 MORE DOLS SWITCH CONTENTS - F: T
S812.015 8e - LARC - RETAIL THEFT $750+ SWITCH CONTENTS PREV CONV - F: S
S812.015 8f - LARC - MULTIPLE THEFTS WI SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD - F: T
S812.015 8f - LARC - MULTIPLE THEFT WI SPECIFIED TIME PER PREV CONV - F: S
S812.015 9 - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC#6401 - F: S
S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 8730 - F: S
S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9559 - F: S
S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9560 - F: S
S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9561 - F: S
S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9562 - F: S
S812.015 9a - LARC - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 9563 - F: S
S812.015 9b - LARC - COORDINATE OTHERS RETAIL THEFT OVER 3K DOLS - F: S
S812.015 9c - LARC - RETAIL THEFT CONSPR SELL EXCESS 3K DOL - F: S
S812.015 9d - LARC - MULTIPLE THEFTS WI TIME PERIOD - F: S



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 260 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 2018)

. . . ) 14.1 degree Petit theft - first 812.014(3)(b) 14.1 degree Battery 784.03 8.3 Resisting a Merchant 812.015 . . . ) 14.1 degree Petit theft - first 812.014(3)(b) 14.1 degree Battery 784.03 8.3 Resisting a Merchant 812.015 . . . ) 14.1 degree Petit theft - first 812.014(3)(b) 14.1 degree Battery 784.03 8.3 Resisting a Merchant 812.015 . . . 5.1 Aggravated Assault 784.021 8.2 Felony Battery 784.041 8.5 Battery 784.03 8.3 Resisting a Merchant 812.015 . . .

BENT, v. STATE, 257 So. 3d 501 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Because the legislature enacted section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that law enforcement . . . The issue on appeal is governed by section 812.015, Florida Statutes (2016). . . . . § 812.015(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . The First District held that the officers' stop of the vehicle was authorized by section 812.015, Florida . . . See § 812.015(3)(a), Fla. Stat. We affirm. Affirmed. Gerber, C.J., and Klingensmith, J., concur. . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 231 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 2017)

. . . Next, the third element includes all the circumstances set forth in section, 812.015(8)(a)-(d). . . . Definitions. § 812.015(l)(a), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.015(l)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.015(l)(c), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 812.015(9), Fla. . . .

MCCLOVER, v. STATE, 217 So. 3d 96 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . (citing § 812.015(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (2012)). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 163 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 2015)

. . . Comment This instruction was adopted in 2015. 15.5 RESISTING RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY § 812.015(6) . . . “Property” means anything of value, and includes tangible personal property. § 812.015(1), Fla. . . . Affirmative Defense. § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. . . . Lesser Included Offenses RESISTING RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY — 812.015(6) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO . . . Petit theft — first degree ⅜ 812.014(2)(e) 14.1 Battery 784.03 8.3 Assault 784.011 8.1 Comments ⅜ § 812.015 . . .

STATE v. LORD,, 150 So. 3d 260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . The circuit court granted defendant’s motion to suppress, because under sections 901.15 and 812.015, . . . court erred as a matter of law by concluding that the officers did not have the authority under section 812.015 . . . This case was instead controlled by section 812.015(4), which specifically addresses warrantless arrests . . . K-Mart Corp., 396 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (affirming summary judgment for K-Mart under sections 812.015 . . . arrest for shoplifting, because the officer had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff under section 812.015 . . .

F. T. a v. STATE, 146 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Statutes (2013)), it is also subject to separate and more specific statutory treatment under section 812.015 . . . otherwise removed, depriving the owner of her or his lawful right to ownership and sale of said item. § 812.015 . . .

CENATIS, v. STATE, 120 So. 3d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Possession or use of an antishoplifting device countermeasure is prohibited by section 812.015(7), Florida . . . designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device. § 812.015 . . . The state charged Blunt with violating section 812.015(7). Id. . . . under the definition of an ‘antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure’ found in s. 812.015 . . . In the instant case, the booster bag used by Cenatis fits the plain language of section 812.015(l)(i) . . .

PERRY BROWN, v. J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., 521 F. App'x 922 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 812.015(3)(a). . . . Stat. § 812.015(3)(a). See Chorak, 409 So.2d at 39. . . .

McCLOVER, v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Convicted of felony retail theft in violation of section 812.015(8)(a), Florida Statutes, Toccara McClover . . . Section 812.015(l)(d) defines retail theft as: taking possession of or carrying away of merchandise, . . .

MILIAN, v. STATE, 92 So. 3d 304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . 812.014, Florida Statutes (2009), and felony retail theft in concert with others in violation of section 812.015 . . .

RIMONDI, v. STATE, 89 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . 812.014, Florida Statutes (2009), and felony retail theft in concert with others in violation of section 812.015 . . . The elements of felony retail theft under section 812.015(8)(a) are: (1) Knowingly (2) taking possession . . . See § 812.015(l)(d), (8)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . In 1985, the Florida Supreme Court held, "Under section 812.015, retail theft is a species of the theft . . . While felony retail theft as defined in section 812.015(8)(a) contains an element that is not an element . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 95 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 2012)

. . . The Committee sought to track the statutory language of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2011), . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. In No. In No. In No. In No. s In No. In No. In No. In No., 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010)

. . . Various statutes justify restraint under stated circumstances, e.g., F.S. 812.015, 901.15, 901.151 (2006 . . .

PETERSON, v. STATE, 24 So. 3d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 812.015(6). . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. STATE, 29 So. 3d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 812.015(3)(a), Fla. Slat. (2006). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 982 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2008)

. . . 784.011 8.1 Aggravated assault 784.021 8.2 Display of firearm 790.07 10.3 or .4 Resisting a merchant 812.015 . . . Aggravated battery 784.045 8.4 Assault 784.011 8.1 Display of weapon 790.07(1) 10.3 Resisting a merchant 812.015 . . . Aggravated battery -7-84Q45 84 Assault 7840-14 84 Displawof weapon .790,07(4) 10 3 Resisting a merchant 812.015 . . .

C. G. a v. STATE, 981 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . juvenile disposition order adjudicating the appellant guilty of evasion of transit fare under section 812.015 . . . See § 812.015(1)0), Florida Statutes (2006). . . . See § 812.015(1)¾), Fla. Stat. (2006); Aversano v. . . . entry of fare-paying passengers, and shall constitute petit theft as proscribed by this chapter. § 812.015 . . .

STUCKEY, v. STATE, 972 So. 2d 918 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (2004); see also Lane v. . . . See § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (2004); Stuckey. . . . purposes of this section the charge of theft and the charge of resisting may be tried concurrently. § 812.015 . . .

POLITE, v. STATE, 933 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Stat. (2005)(fleeing or eluding officer); § 812.015(6), Fla. . . . Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2005), in pertinent part, provides: An individual who, while committing . . .

JAGGERNAUTH, v. U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,, 432 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Statutes § 812.014(1) as well as the misdemeanor offense of resisting a merchant under Florida Statutes § 812.015 . . .

E. SNELL, v. STATE, 932 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . involved in his case used excessive force in coercing him to empty his pockets, in violation of section 812.015 . . . Section 812.015(3)(a) provides, in pertinent part: A law enforcement officer, a merchant, ... who has . . .

STUCKEY, v. STATE, 907 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . The crime of resisting a merchant, as it is applicable to the present case, is described in section 812.015 . . .

LANE, v. STATE, 867 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . conviction for resisting a merchant’s employee’s efforts to recover stolen property in violation of section 812.015 . . . Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (2002). . . .

J. HENRY, v. STATE, 864 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 812.015(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002); Scott v. State, 519 So.2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 855 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . his lawyer did not request a charge on the lesser included offense of resisting a merchant, section 812.015 . . .

BURTON, v. STATE, 844 So. 2d 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . .” § 812.015(6). We disagree. Ms. . . . DAVIS, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge, concur. . § 812.015(6), Fla. Stal. (2001). . . .

G. SCHAEFFER, v. STATE, 779 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1997), makes it a first degree misdemeanor for a shoplifter to . . .

C. STEWART, v. STATE, 790 So. 2d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

HEGGS, v. STATE, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)

. . . with the changes to the theft statute; section 11 amends the retail and farm theft statute (section 812.015 . . .

STATE v. BLUNT, 744 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . antish-oplifting or inventory control device coun- . termeasure” for purposes of a prosecution under subsection 812.015 . . . Defendants were charged with, among other things, a violation of subsection 812.015(7), Florida Statutes . . . designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device.” § 812.015 . . . under the definition of an “antishoplift-ing or inventory control device countermeasure” found in s. 812.015 . . . Id. § 812.015(l)(h). . . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 745 So. 2d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Appellant challenges his conviction of resisting a retail merchant in violation of section 812.015(6) . . . Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1997), provides, in relevant part: (6) An individual who, while . . .

D. SMITH, v. STATE, 743 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . [COURT] I’ll look at 812.015. * * * [COURT] I’m going to suggest that we redact some of this, so that . . . And, basically, that I instruct the jury that Florida Statute 812.015 provides: ... . . . The court then read the jury instruction crafted from section 812.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1997): . . . pertinent portion of this rather long and detailed statute reads as follows, and it’s found in subsection [812.015 . . . take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a length of time.” § 812.015 . . .

E. EPPS, v. STATE, 728 So. 2d 761 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . .” § 812.015(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

J. B. a v. STATE, 715 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . robbery, section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997) and resisting merchandise recovery, section 812.015 . . .

L. RIVERS, M. D. L. J. a v. DILLARDS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC. a, 698 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Thus section 812.015, Florida Statutes, did not provide a basis to detain them. . . .

MALDANADO, v. STATE, 691 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . would request a jury instruction on the lesser offense of resisting a merchant pursuant to section 812.015 . . . Pursuant to the 1992 amendment of section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes, the charge of resisting a merchant . . .

DUVAL, v. STATE, 688 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . counsel requested that the jury be instructed on the charge of resisting a merchant, pursuant to section 812.015 . . . Pursuant to the 1992 amendment of section 812.015(6), the charge of resisting a merchant is a permissive . . .

ANTHONY DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. MILLER BREWING COMPANY,, 941 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . . § 812.015(1) instead of Section 812.014(1). . . . This must be a scrivener’s error, because Section 812.015(1) merely defines words used in the retail . . .

LAMB, v. STATE, 679 So. 2d 59 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

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

McRAE, v. STATE, 679 So. 2d 14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 812.015, Fla.Stat. (1993). . In Young v. . . .

E. SANDERS, v. STATE, 654 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . State, 524 So.2d 658 (Fla.1988) and the version of the statute interpreted therein, section 812.015(6 . . . See § 812.015(6), Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

STARKS, v. STATE, 637 So. 2d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . designation on the defendant’s sentence for the misdemeanor of resisting a merchant in violation of section 812.015 . . .

L. McCARTHREN, v. STATE, 635 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . . § 812.015(6), Fla.Stat. . . .

V. CANTO, Jr. v. J. B. IVEY AND COMPANY,, 595 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . raised the defense at trial that it was immune from liability for false imprisonment pursuant to Section 812.015 . . . Section 812.015(5) provides: A merchant, merchant’s employee, or farmer who takes a person into custody . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 566 So. 2d 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . . § 812.015, Fla.Stat. (1987). . § 843.02, Fla.Stat. (1987). . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701d.l4. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. F. BAKER, U. S., 30 M.J. 262 (C.M.A. 1990)

. . . . § 812.015 (West Supp.1990); Ga.Code Ann. § 51-7-60 (Michie 1982); Idaho Code § 48 704 (1974); Ill.Rev . . .

COFFIE, v. STATE, 562 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . In K.C., the supreme court held that section 812.015(6) requires a finding of guilt on the underlying . . .

JACK ECKERD CORPORATION, v. SMITH,, 558 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . authorized to conduct it, was an honest albeit mistaken effort to comply with the spirit of section 812.015 . . .

HOOD, v. ZAYRE CORPORATION, 529 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Zayre’s answer raised section 812.015, Florida Statutes (1985) (immunity for merchants) as an affirmative . . . After noting the statutory predecessor of section 812.015, the court held that the facts in Rothstein . . .

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

. . . counts of resisting a store employee’s efforts to recover the merchandise, in violation of section 812.015 . . . Petitioner was adjudicated delinquent on all counts, and argued on appeal that section 812.015(6) precludes . . . recognized conflict with the First and Fifth District Courts of Appeal which have held that section 812.015 . . . We find these holdings consistent with the plain language of section 812.015(6). . . . Regardless of our views on this argument’s merit, the clear and unequivocal language of section 812.015 . . . In my view, section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983), can reasonably be construed to require the jury . . .

TIRONI v. PANTRY PRIDE ENTERPRISES, INC., 519 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

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

STATE v. FOREHAND,, 507 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . .§§ 812.014(1), (2)(b)1 & 812.015(1), Fla.Stat. (1985). . §§ 810.02(1) & (3), Fla.Stat. (1985). . §§ . . .

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

. . . counts of resisting the efforts of two store employees to recover the candy, in violation of section 812.015 . . . Section 812.015(6) provides as follows: An individual who resists the reasonable effort of a law enforcement . . .

In W. L. B. a, 502 So. 2d 50 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . W.L.B. entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of resisting a merchant, Section 812.015(6), Florida . . .

ROYAL, v. STATE, 490 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1986)

. . . A theft can occur under sections 812.014(1) and 812.015(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1983), regardless of . . . Section 812.015, which defines retail theft as "the taking possession of ... merchandise ... with intent . . .

In J. L. P. a, 490 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

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

PEARCE, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, 476 So. 2d 750 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 812.015(3)(c) states that the taking into custody and detention by a law enforcement officer, . . . It has been determined that the protection of section 812.015 does not extend to claims of malicious . . . A comparison of the operative language of section 812.015 and that of section 626.-989 reveals much. . . . , or unlawful detention.” § 812.015(3)(c). . . . Section 812.015 creates an immunity for the persons specified, if they have conformed with the stated . . .

WINN- DIXIE STORES, INC. v. ROBINSON,, 472 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1985)

. . . In the enactment of section 812.015, Florida Statutes, Florida has recognized that shoplifting is a serious . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 463 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . months suspended, and placed on probation for a period of three years for violating sections 812.014 and 812.015 . . .

EMSHWILLER, v. STATE, 462 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1985)

. . . intent to deprive the owner of the “full retail value of said property; contrary to chapter 812.014/812.015 . . . This definition is also contained in the retail theft statute. § 812.015(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1981). . . . , and concluding that section 812.015 created no new crime of retail theft, but “simply provided a set . . . Under section 812.015, retail theft is a species of the theft defined in section 812.014, not a separate . . . Section 812.015 does not contain a penalty provision for first offenses, but merely enhances penalties . . .

STATE v. JONES,, 461 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1984)

. . . Séction 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1981) provides: [a]n individual who resists the reasonable effort . . . We do noi agree with the Third District or Judge Rawls that section 812.015, Florida Statutes raises . . . found to be unreasonable, a result surely not contemplated by the legislature in the passage of section 812.015 . . . Because this common law right antedated the statutory right of reasonable detention under section 812.015 . . .

C. POLLOCK, v. ALBERTSON S, INC., 458 So. 2d 74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . The trial court apparently granted Al-bertson’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of section 812.015 . . . (Section 812.015(3)(c)). See Rothstein v. . . . But while the court may have been correct in holding that by virtue of section 812.015, it was reasonable . . .

ROYAL v. STATE, 452 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Compare the statutory definition of “retail theft” in section 812.015(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1981), . . . Stat.) and “the taking possession of” in the retail theft statute (§ 812.015(l)(d), Fla.Stat.) and “the . . .

EMSHWILLER, v. STATE, 443 So. 2d 343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . intent to deprive the owner of the “full retail value of said property; contrary to chapter 812.014/812.015 . . . Our colleagues at the Third District Court of Appeal held in Tobe that under section 812.015, “retail . . . While section 812.015(l)(d) defines “retail theft,” nowhere in section 812.015 is any specific punishment . . . Further, we cannot perceive when the “value of merchandise” as defined in section 812.015(l)(e) would . . . Instead of creating a separate crime of “retail theft” of merchandise by enacting section 812.015, we . . .

TOBE, v. STATE, 435 So. 2d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . by adding to this instruction the definition of value contained in the retail theft statute, section 812.015 . . .

JONES, v. STATE, 434 So. 2d 337 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . remained silent after she was apprehended by a retail store detective for shoplifting pursuant to Section 812.015 . . . State, 249 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); § 812.015(1)(c), Fla.Stat. (1981). . . .

E. MORRIS, v. ALBERTSON S, INC. A, 705 F.2d 406 (11th Cir. 1983)

. . . Albertson’s denied liability on the grounds that it was immune from suit under Florida statute § 812.015 . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 812.015 (West Supp.1983). . . .

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

. . . Section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1979), under which appellant was charged, includes as a material . . . Section 812.015(6) provides as follows: An individual who resists the reasonable effort of a peace officer . . .

HUGHES a k a v. STATE, 400 So. 2d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . court has requested and received memoranda as to potential applicability of the lesser penalty of § 812.015 . . .

WEISSMAN v. K- MART CORPORATION, a, 396 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Florida law, merchants, their employees, and peace officers who comply with the requirements of Section 812.015 . . . Section 812.015(4), (5). Viewing the evidence most favorably to appellants, Furlong v. . . . attention to appellants’ other cause of action, we note that the limited protection afforded by Section 812.015 . . .