THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSA MAE BLUNT AND TIARA WILLIAMS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of charges against two defendants accused of using tinfoil to defeat store security sensors while attempting to steal merchandise. The court held that tinfoil, by itself, does not constitute an "antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure" under Florida law because the statute requires the item to be designed, manufactured, modified, or altered for that purpose.
Tinfoil cannot be an "antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure" because the statutory definition requires an item or device to be designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat security devices. Plain tinfoil, standing alone, does not meet this definition regardless of how it was used.
[1] An item is not an "antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure" under Florida Statutes section 812.015(1)(c) unless it is designed, manufactured, modified,…
[2] The mere use of an ordinary item, such as tinfoil, to defeat an antishoplifting device does not render the item itself a "countermeasure" as defined by statute.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“any item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device”
The statutory definition of what constitutes a countermeasure, establishing that the item must be specifically designed, manufactured, modified, or altered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosa Mae Blunt and Tiara Williams were apprehended attempting to steal clothing from a store. They covered store security sensors with tinfoil to evad…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule Of Lenity cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
The question presented by this State appeal is whether tinfoil can be an “antish-oplifting or inventory control device coun- . termeasure” for purposes of a prosecution under subsection 812.015(7), Florida Statutes (1997). We conclude that it cannot and affirm the order under review.
Defendants-appellees Rosa Mae Blunt and Tiara Williams were apprehended trying to steal clothing from a store. They covered the store security sensors with tinfoil to evade detection when they attempted to walk past the sensors with the stolen merchandise hidden in a bag.
Defendants were charged with, among other things, a violation of subsection 812.015(7), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides, “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.” Use of such a device is a third-degree felony. See id.
The retail theft statute defines “antisho-plifting or inventory control device countermeasure” as “any item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device.” § 812.015(1)©, Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added).1 In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss this charge, Judge Pineiro ruled:
The defendants wrapped tinfoil around the store security sensors to evade detection of the stolen merchandise in their bag. Tinfoil, by itself, does not fall under the definition of an “antishoplift-ing or inventory control device countermeasure” found in s. 812.015(l)(i) because tinfoil is not an item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered. The tinfoil may have been used in such fashion. However, use is not part of the definition.
We entirely agree. The trial court’s interpretation is in accord with the plain words of the statute. If there were any doubt (and we think there is none), “when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.” § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1997).2
Affirmed.
. An "antishoplifting or inventory control device” is defined as "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." Id. § 812.015(l)(h).
. Upon dismissal of these felony counts the defendants pled no contest to the remaining petit theft counts and were sentenced accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Francesca Cenatis v. State, 120 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ed, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device. § 812.015(l)(h), (i), Fla. Stat. (2010). Cenatis relies on the only reported decision discussing the antishoplifting device countermeasure statute, State v. Blunt, 744 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In Blunt, two women “covered the store security sensors with tinfoil to evade detection when they attempted to walk past the sensors with the stolen merchandise hidden in a bag.” Id. at 1258. The state charged Blunt with violatin…
-
Martinez-Rivero v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…or 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.” § 812.015(1)(h), Fla. Stat. Relying upon State v. Blunt, 744 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), Martinez-Rivero contends the magnetic device and hook are ordinary objects, hence, they are not designed or manufactured for the purpose of ---PAGE 5--- defeating inventory control devices and fall outside the ambit of the st…
-
Mocombe v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute itself must be given its plain and obvious meaning.”) (quoting C.S. v. S.H., 671 So. 2d 260, 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)); State v. Blunt, 744 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding aluminum foil used to defeat inventory device failed to satisfy requisite statutory definition of antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure because it was not “designed, manufactured, modified, or…