Shoplifting / Retail Theft
The Morris Law Firm, P.A. can help and has specific knowledge and experience in Shoplifting / Retail Theft defense. If you are in search of a St. Petersburg theft defense lawyer to represent you then contact the Morris Law Firm today. Morris Law Firm is willing to aggressively handle your case to get you the lowest possible penalties.
St. Petersburg Shoplifting Lawyer
Shoplifting / Petit Theft
Theft penalties are categorized in degrees depending on the value of the items stolen.
1st Degree Petit Theft
If the assets lifted are appreciated between $100 and $299, the defendant will then be convicted of a 1st-degree misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum punishment of a year of jail time and a substantial $1000 fine.
If the defendant has been convicted of any theft crime more than once, the defendant will then be convicted of a 3rd-degree felony punishable by 5 years of jail time and a substantial maximum fine of $5,000.
2nd Degree Petit Theft
If the assets lifted are appreciated less than $100 or another amount not listed in the states theft statute, the defendant will then be convicted of a 2nd-degree misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of 60 days jail time and a $500 fine.
Retail Theft transpires when an individual illegitimately lifts goods from a merchant with the intentions to deprive the merchant of the merchandise and a financial benefit. Circumstances including merchandise appreciated at $100 or less are charged as a 2nd-degree misdemeanor. Goods that are appreciated between $100 and $300 are typically charged as first degree misdemeanors. Furthermore, any prior convictions of Retail Theft are grounds for a second offense to be charged as a 1st-degree misdemeanor.
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.—
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, 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.
(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 prescribed 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.
- 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.
(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.
- 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.
(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.
- 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.
- 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.
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 property stolen is valued at $300 or
more, and 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, in which case the amount of each individual theft
is aggregated to determine the value of the property stolen;
(b) Commits theft from more than one location within a 48-hour period, in which case the amount of each individual theft is aggregated to determine the value of the property stolen;
(c) 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; or
(d) 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.
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
(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 where the stolen property has a value in excess of $3,000.
The Morris Law Firm, P.A., St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney is dedicated to defending Shoplifting / Retail Theft clients throughout Pinellas County and the entire Tampa Bay Area (St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Hillsborough, Pasco, Manatee, and Sarasota County).
Melinda Morris is a former prosecutor and has handled thousands of criminal cases from investigation through sentencing enabling us to identify weaknesses in the State’s case against you.
We never settle for the easiest outcome or the typical result. We know how to negotiate with the State Attorney and we will work to get you the best possible outcome.
Melinda Morris has practiced criminal law for over 20 years. Our clients trust advice that comes from experience in nearly every type of criminal case.
We will know every client’s story because we will take the time to listen and understand. You will work with your attorney one-on-one at every stage of the process.
You will have the cell phone number of your attorney. Your attorney will directly return your call, email, or text to answer your pressing questions.
The government is wasting no time in trying to prove your guilt, a proactive defense is imperative. Prompt and decisive action from your defense attorney is of critical importance.
At Morris Law Firm, P.A., your satisfaction is our priority! See for yourself what our clients have to say about working with us.
Seth Shapiro is the most professional, courteous, caring attorneys I’ve dealt with in all of my 70 years. He did a fabulous job representing me defending me and getting charges dropped. I couldn’t have dreamed of better counsel.- Stephen on AVVO
100% satisfied with Morris law group. Melinda was able to resolve my legal issues with no additional expenses other than my original retainer. I highly recommend this firm for professional and competent representation.- Peter R. on Yelp
If you want the best legal representation, look no further than Morris law firm. Melinda reassured me from the very first time we spoke over the phone. She is very professional and keeps you updated on the progress of your case. I really liked that I didn’t have to reach out to her Everything was smooth, straightforward and she put my mind at ease. You’ll be in good hands with her. Thank you Melinda- Hassan on Google
Mr.Shapiro helped my case by looking at the police body cam diligently which supported my testimony . He presented evidence to the prosecutor .I hired Seth Shapiro to defend me after a domestic battery charge in which I was wrongfully accused and arrested. My case was dismissed thankfully. .Couldn't have asked for a better outcome. This was an extreme difficult time for me. Seth Shapiro was knowledgeable and compassionate in my case. He followed up with my concerns. I would highly recommend this firm.- Melody Z.
Melinda has represented me on numerous cases and the outcome has always been great. Melinda goes above and beyond to defend your rights and get you the best possible outcome. I highly recommend hiring her.- Shasta on Google
Morris Law Firm is a very professional and responsive. They closed my case in a very short terms, for what I'm very grateful. Strongly recommend them especially Seth Shapiro. He decreased my case from felony to misdemeanor in short terms and during 6 months my case was totally closed.- Elina P. on Google