I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. As chief operating officer and chief assistant public defender of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, I supervised the felony divisions where dealing in stolen property was one of the most frequently filed second-degree felonies — often against people who had never stolen anything and had simply pawned something for a friend, a roommate, or a boyfriend. Our attorneys defend these cases throughout Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, and the first thing we look at is not the pawn ticket but the “should have known” element the State has to prove.

How Does Florida Law Define Dealing in Stolen Property?

Dealing in stolen property is trafficking, or trying to traffic, in property that the person knows or should know was stolen. Section 812.019(1), Florida Statutes, provides that “any person who traffics in, or endeavors to traffic in, property that he or she knows or should know was stolen shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree.” Subsection (2) creates an aggravated version: a person who “initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property and traffics in such stolen property” commits a first-degree felony.

Three parts of that definition catch people by surprise:

1. “Traffic” is broad. Section 812.012 defines trafficking to include selling, transferring, distributing, dispensing, or otherwise disposing of property — and buying, receiving, possessing, or obtaining control of property with intent to do any of those things. A single pawn is trafficking. So is listing an item on Facebook Marketplace.
2. “Endeavors to traffic” means the sale does not have to happen. Offering a stolen item for sale, or walking into a pawn shop with it, completes the offense even if the pawnbroker refuses the transaction.
3. “Should know” is not “did know.” The State does not have to prove actual knowledge. It has to prove that a reasonable person in your position would have known the property was stolen — and the statute gives prosecutors a set of inferences to help them do it.

What Are the Penalties for Dealing in Stolen Property in Florida?

Up to 15 years in prison for the ordinary offense and up to 30 for organizing the theft — with no dollar threshold and no misdemeanor tier:

The comparison rows are the point. A person who steals a $400 phone commits a first-degree misdemeanor. A person who pawns that phone for someone else commits a second-degree felony with fifteen years of exposure and a scoresheet that starts at 28 points. This is why dealing is so often the lead charge in Hillsborough County property cases: it carries more weight than the theft it grew out of, and it is easier to prove, because the pawn ticket does most of the work.

The one softer path is section 812.0195, Florida Statutes, which covers using the Internet to sell property the person “knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is stolen.” It is graded by value — a misdemeanor under $300, a third-degree felony at $300 or more — and its existence is a negotiating point in online-sale cases, since the State frequently charges the same Marketplace listing under the far harsher section 812.019.

What Does “Knew or Should Have Known” Mean, and How Does the State Prove It?

It means the State can convict on inferences, not just direct proof — and the inferences are written into the statute. Section 812.022, Florida Statutes, lists circumstances that, “unless satisfactorily explained,” permit a jury to infer that the person knew or should have known the property was stolen:

These inferences are permissive, not mandatory — the jury may draw them, and must be told it may not if the circumstance is “satisfactorily explained.” But the State has to earn each one with evidence before the judge may read it to the jury, and that requirement is where a Hillsborough County dealing conviction was recently reversed.

In Cintron v. State, No. 2D21-40 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 20, 2022), a Hillsborough County jury convicted a man of dealing in stolen property after he listed a set of tools on Facebook Marketplace and agreed to sell them for $800 in a Walmart parking lot — to the man they had been stolen from. Cintron testified that he had bought the tools from a stranger at a gas station for $195 and wanted to make “a quick buck.” The trial judge gave the jury the below-market-value inference and the dealer-in-property inference. The Second District reversed on both. The victim’s testimony that his recovered tools were “maybe” worth $3,000 or $3,500 was not evidence of fair market value, because it said nothing about the tools’ age, condition, or depreciation — and without fair market value there was no way to say $195 was “substantially below” it. And a person who buys property once and resells it is not “a dealer in property,” which the statute defines as a person “in the business of buying and selling property.” The court ordered a new trial. The lesson for every dealing case is that the inferences are not automatic; the State must prove the predicate facts, and a defense attorney who objects at the charge conference can keep them away from the jury.

Why Is the Pawn Shop Usually Where the Case Begins?

Because Florida law turns every pawn transaction into a police report. Under the Florida Pawnbroking Act, section 539.001, Florida Statutes, a pawnbroker must complete a transaction form for every pledge or purchase that records the seller’s government identification and its number, a detailed description of the item — brand, model, serial number, size, color, and “any other unique identifying marks, numbers, names, or letters” — the seller’s right thumbprint and signature, and the seller’s written representation that the property “is not stolen.” The pawnbroker must deliver those forms to law enforcement for “each of the transactions occurring during the previous business day,” and must hold the goods for at least 30 days.

In Hillsborough County those forms feed the databases detectives search by serial number, description, and seller. When a burglary victim reports a stolen laptop, the serial number is queried; when it appears on a pawn ticket, the person whose ID and thumbprint are on that ticket is the suspect — regardless of who actually broke into the house. That is how a person who pawned an item as a favor becomes the defendant in a second-degree felony while the actual thief is never identified.

Two features of this system matter for the defense. First, the pawn ticket proves possession and trafficking, but it does not prove knowledge; the “should have known” element still has to be established separately. Second, the transaction form is the seller’s sworn statement that the property was not stolen — which the State uses as evidence of knowledge, but which is also, when the seller truly believed it, evidence of good faith.

Can You Be Convicted of Both Theft and Dealing in Stolen Property?

Not for the same property in the same scheme. Section 812.025, Florida Statutes, allows the State to charge both theft and dealing “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct” in separate counts, but provides that “the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both.” The Legislature’s theory, as Florida courts have explained, is that the two statutes target different people: the theft statute is aimed at the “common thief” who steals for personal use, and the dealing statute at the network of “thieves and fences” who redistribute stolen goods. A jury has to decide which one the defendant is.

The Florida Supreme Court has applied the rule in two cases that came up through the Second District, the appellate court for Tampa Bay. In Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2013), a Hillsborough County defendant stole video game systems and games from a home one evening and pawned some of them the next afternoon; convicted of both grand theft and dealing, he argued the jury should have been told it could convict of only one. The court agreed, holding that theft and dealing are “one scheme or course of conduct if they involve the same property and there is no meaningful disruption via an interval of time or set of circumstances,” that trial courts “have an obligation to instruct the jury on section 812.025” whenever both counts go to the jury, and that the failure to do so required a new trial on both counts. In Anucinski v. State, 148 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2014), a woman stole a $2,500 ring from a Tiffany store, rode her bicycle to a pawn shop, and pawned it for $400 the same day; she pleaded to both counts. The court held that the rule applies to pleas as well as verdicts — a judge cannot adjudicate a defendant guilty of both — and that on remand the trial court must decide whether she was a “common thief” or a “trafficker” and vacate the other conviction. “The linchpin of section 812.025,” the court wrote, “is the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property.”

For a defendant, the rule means three things. A plea offer that includes both a theft count and a dealing count for the same property is legally defective and should never be accepted as written. At trial, the jury must be instructed on the choice, and a lawyer who fails to request the instruction has given up a new trial. And the “common thief” framing is a genuine defense theory: a person who stole something for their own use and later sold it is guilty of the theft — a misdemeanor or third-degree felony — not the fifteen-year dealing charge.

How Do Our Attorneys Fight Dealing in Stolen Property Charges?

By attacking the only element that is usually in dispute — knowledge — and by holding the State to the procedural rules that most often produce reversals:

1. The “should have known” element. The pawn ticket proves you had the item and sold it. It does not prove you knew or should have known it was stolen. We build the account of how you came to have the property — who gave it to you, what you were told, what you paid, what you had reason to believe — and present the “satisfactory explanation” that defeats the statutory inferences.
2. The predicate for each inference. Under Cintron, the below-market-value inference requires competent evidence of fair market value at the time of the transaction, and the dealer inference requires proof that you were in the business of buying and selling. We object to every inference the State has not earned.
3. The section 812.025 election. Where the State charges theft and dealing for the same property, we insist on the instruction Williams requires and, in negotiations, on a disposition that recognizes the client as a common thief rather than a trafficker when the facts support it.
4. Identification and the thumbprint. Pawn tickets are sometimes completed under another person’s ID, and the thumbprint on the form is the State’s proof of identity. We examine the form, the store video, and the pawnbroker’s compliance with section 539.001.
5. Value and the Internet statute. In online-sale cases, the State’s choice to charge section 812.019 rather than section 812.0195 is a charging decision, not a legal necessity, and the existence of the graded Internet statute is leverage.
6. The disposition. Dealing is a second-degree felony, but it is a Level 5 offense. For a first-time defendant with a clean scoresheet, a withhold of adjudication, a reduction to petit theft, or pretrial diversion is often achievable — and because a felony conviction for dealing is what employers and landlords see, that outcome matters more here than in almost any other property case.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County criminal defense page. Our related articles on theft charges in Florida and proving value in Florida grand theft cases cover the underlying offenses.

What Should You Do If Police Contact You About Something You Pawned?

Do not explain the transaction to the detective, and do not go back to the pawn shop. A detective who calls about a pawn ticket already has your name, your identification number, your thumbprint, and the item’s serial number; what the detective does not have is proof that you knew the property was stolen, and the phone call is an attempt to get it. “My cousin asked me to pawn it for him” sounds like an innocent explanation and is, in the State’s hands, an admission that you trafficked property you did not own. Save every message about the item — who gave it to you, what they said, what you paid — because those messages are the “satisfactory explanation” the statute contemplates. Do not contact the person who gave you the item. And retain counsel before any statement, because in dealing cases the statement is frequently the only evidence of knowledge the State ever gets.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dealing in Stolen Property in Florida

Is dealing in stolen property a felony in Florida?

Yes. Ordinary dealing under section 812.019(1) is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, regardless of the property’s value; organizing the theft and trafficking in the goods under section 812.019(2) is a first-degree felony punishable by up to 30 years. The only misdemeanor version is selling property worth less than $300 over the Internet under section 812.0195.

Can I be charged if I didn’t know the item was stolen?

Yes, if the State can prove you “should have known.” Section 812.022 lets a jury infer knowledge from possession of recently stolen property, from a price substantially below fair market value, or from a dealer’s failure to follow ordinary business practices — unless the circumstance is “satisfactorily explained.” Your explanation of how you came to have the item is the defense, and The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. builds that explanation with evidence before the State hears it in an interrogation room.

Is pawning something for a friend a crime in Florida?

It is not a crime if the item was not stolen. If it was, pawning it for someone else is “trafficking” under section 812.019, and the question becomes whether you knew or should have known. Because your ID and thumbprint are on the pawn ticket and your friend’s are not, you — not your friend — are the person the detective calls. Do not answer that call without a lawyer.

Can I be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property?

Not for the same property in one scheme or course of conduct. Section 812.025 and the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in Williams and Anucinski require the jury — or the judge accepting a plea — to choose one. A conviction for both is legally defective and can be corrected on appeal or by postconviction motion.

What is the difference between theft and dealing in stolen property?

Theft is taking property with intent to deprive the owner of it; its degree depends on value, starting as a misdemeanor. Dealing is trafficking in property you know or should know is stolen; it is a second-degree felony at any value. Florida treats the person who redistributes stolen goods as more dangerous than the person who steals them for personal use, which is why the “fence” charge is harsher than the theft charge.

Do pawn shops report to the police in Florida?

Yes, every transaction. Section 539.001 requires pawnbrokers to record the seller’s identification, a detailed description of the goods including serial numbers, and the seller’s thumbprint and signature, and to deliver those forms to law enforcement for every transaction from the previous business day. In Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties those records are searchable by detectives by serial number and by seller.

Can a dealing in stolen property charge be reduced or dismissed?

Yes, frequently. Common outcomes include dismissal when the State cannot prove the knowledge element, reduction to petit theft or grand theft under the section 812.025 “common thief” theory, reduction to the Internet-sale statute in online cases, and withholds of adjudication or diversion for first-time defendants. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. treats the felony label as the thing to be defeated, because it is the label — not the sentence — that follows a client for life.

If you or a family member has been contacted by a detective about a pawn ticket, or has been arrested for dealing in stolen property anywhere in Tampa Bay, the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — will handle the police contact and begin assembling the explanation the statute requires before the State builds its inference. Call (813) 727-7159. In these cases the detective’s first phone call is the State’s best chance at proving knowledge; make sure it is a lawyer who answers it.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. I have tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict in Hillsborough County, and today our attorneys defend vending machine, parking meter, theft, and criminal mischief charges throughout Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties.

What Does Florida’s Vending Machine and Parking Meter Law Prohibit?

Florida’s vending machine statute prohibits tampering with a coin-operated machine in any way, whether or not anything is taken. Section 877.08, Florida Statutes, defines a “coin-operated vending machine” or “parking meter” as any machine or device that operates when a “piece of money, coin, or other object” is inserted and, as a result, entitles the user to food, drink, a parking privilege, or “any other personal property, service, protection, right or privilege of any kind.” That definition covers snack and beverage machines, laundromat washers, car wash bays, arcade and claw machines, air pumps, newspaper boxes, and coin-fed parking meters.

The statute then creates two offenses. Subsection (2) punishes anyone who “maliciously or mischievously molests, opens, breaks, injures, damages, or inserts any part of her or his body or any instrument into” a coin-operated machine belonging to another. Subsection (3) punishes the same acts when done “with intent to commit larceny.” Both are second-degree misdemeanors on a first offense. The difference matters only for repeat offenders: under subsection (4), a second or subsequent violation of the larceny version is a third-degree felony.

The statute was written in 1965 for coin mechanisms and has not been substantively updated since a 2013 cleanup. Whether a card-only or app-only pay station falls within a definition built on the “insertion” of money or an object is an open question; our attorneys have found no published Florida appellate decision resolving it, and the argument that a tap-to-pay kiosk is outside section 877.08 is one we raise whenever the State charges it. In practice, prosecutors avoid the question by charging card-reader tampering under the theft, criminal mischief, or skimming-device statutes instead.

What Is the Difference Between Tampering and Tampering With Intent to Steal?

Intent to commit larceny is the only difference, and it is the element that turns a repeat offense into a felony. The Second District Court of Appeal, whose decisions bind the trial courts of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, explained the structure in Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Officers in Palm Harbor found Kenneth Ingraham in the early morning hours near a damaged beverage machine with tools and vending machine keys; he had a 1994 conviction for the same offense and was convicted of felony vending machine theft. The court held that tampering under subsection (2) “does not require proof of intent to commit larceny” and is never more than a misdemeanor no matter how many times it is repeated, while subsection (3) requires that intent and becomes a felony only on a second conviction. The State’s charging document in Ingraham had omitted the intent element, but because the defendant contested only identity and never disputed intent, the court found no fundamental error and affirmed the conviction.

Two consequences follow. First, a person with a prior tampering conviction who is caught damaging a machine faces only a misdemeanor unless the State can prove intent to steal on both occasions. Second, the prior conviction that makes the felony is an element the State must plead and prove. In Brehm v. State, 427 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the Third District held that an information charging a section 877.08 violation without alleging the prior conviction charged only a misdemeanor, so the circuit court had no jurisdiction and the felony judgment was void. Our attorneys check the charging document in every felony vending machine case for exactly that defect.

When Does Vending Machine Theft Become Grand Theft or Felony Criminal Mischief?

When the value of what was taken or damaged crosses the general theft and criminal mischief thresholds, because nothing in section 877.08 prevents the State from charging those statutes instead. In our experience Hillsborough prosecutors do exactly that whenever the numbers support it, and the vending machine statute ends up charged mainly in cases where nothing of value was taken.

Under section 812.014, Florida Statutes, taking property worth less than $100 is petit theft of the second degree, a second-degree misdemeanor; $100 to $749.99 is petit theft of the first degree, a first-degree misdemeanor with up to a year in jail; and $750 or more is grand theft of the third degree, a felony with up to five years in prison. A petit theft by someone with a prior theft conviction is a first-degree misdemeanor, and a petit theft by someone with two prior theft convictions is a third-degree felony. A vending machine cash box or a bank of parking meters can hold several hundred dollars, and machines emptied over several nights can be aggregated into a single grand theft count when the State alleges one scheme.

Under section 806.13, Florida Statutes, willfully and maliciously damaging another’s property is criminal mischief: a second-degree misdemeanor when the damage is $200 or less, a first-degree misdemeanor when it is more than $200 but less than $1,000, and a third-degree felony when it is $1,000 or more or when the person has a prior criminal mischief conviction. A pried-open vending machine with a destroyed lock and bent door, or a parking pay station with a smashed display, routinely exceeds $1,000 in repair cost, and the operator’s repair invoice is the State’s evidence of value.

Two other statutes appear in these cases, and the first is the one that most often turns a first-offense misdemeanor into a felony. Section 810.06, Florida Statutes, makes it a third-degree felony to possess any tool, machine, or implement with intent to use it to commit a burglary or trespass. In Desin v. State, 414 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1982), a defendant caught with bolt cutters at a vending machine argued that the statute reaches only tools meant for a burglary or a trespass under chapter 810. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed and held that “trespass” in section 810.06 means any unlawful interference with property that a statute makes a crime, and that tampering with a coin-operated machine under section 877.08 qualifies. The court also held that intent to commit a merely civil, common-law trespass is not enough. The result is that a person with a pry bar, drill, or key set and the intent to open a machine can be charged with a five-year felony even on a first offense and even if nothing was taken, while the same person without tools faces a 60-day misdemeanor. For parking pay stations and payment terminals, tampering with a card reader is charged under section 817.625, the skimming device statute, under which use of a skimming device with intent to defraud, or knowing possession of one, is a third-degree felony without any value threshold.

How Do Prosecutors Prove Intent to Steal From a Machine?

Circumstantially, from the tools, the time, the location, and what the person did when approached, because no one confesses to intent and the machine cannot testify. The proof pattern in Ingraham is typical: the hour, the possession of tools and keys, and flight when officers arrived. Surveillance video from the host business or an adjacent building, the operator’s records of what the machine should have contained, and coins or product found on the person round out the State’s case.

Intent is also where these cases are won. A person who kicked a machine that ate a dollar has committed misdemeanor tampering at most, not tampering with intent to steal, and the difference is the difference between a misdemeanor that stays a misdemeanor and a charge that becomes a felony on a second offense. A person found with a screwdriver near a damaged machine has not committed a burglary tools offense unless the State can prove the screwdriver was possessed with intent to use it on the machine. And a person who took product or coins from a machine that was already broken open has committed theft of whatever was taken, but not the “breaking” the statute punishes.

How Common Are Theft and Vandalism Arrests in Hillsborough County, and Who Actually Breaks Into Machines?

Common enough that larceny alone accounts for thousands of Hillsborough arrests a year. In 2020, the most recent year for which the Florida Department of Law Enforcement published county-level Uniform Crime Report arrest tables, Hillsborough County recorded 2,766 larceny arrests and 434 arrests for destruction, damage, or vandalism, out of 32,519 total arrests, and Florida recorded 46,565 larceny arrests and 5,818 vandalism arrests statewide (FDLE, Total Arrests by County, 2020). Vending machine and parking meter cases are a small slice of those numbers, but they are charged under the same theft and criminal mischief statutes and prosecuted in the same county court misdemeanor divisions.

Research on who breaks into machines matters for the defense, because it explains why prosecutors treat a first-time defendant differently from a repeat one. A study of vending machine vandalism in Orlando and Philadelphia published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that “professionals” chose machines by the size of the expected cash take and preferred locations offering anonymity and an escape route, while “amateurs” were drawn to public places with an audience and acted for social and psychological reasons rather than economic gain (Buck, Hakim, Swanson & Rattner, Vandalism of vending machines: Factors that attract professionals and amateurs, 31 J. Crim. Just. 85 (2003)). The legislative structure of section 877.08 tracks that distinction: a first offense is a misdemeanor for everyone, and only the repeat offender with proven intent to steal, the “professional” of the study, faces the felony. Our attorneys use that framework to keep a teenager who kicked a machine at a bus stop from being treated like a person emptying laundromat change machines with a key ring.

How Are Vending Machine and Parking Meter Cases Handled in Hillsborough County?

Most are misdemeanors that begin with a notice to appear or a booking at Orient Road Jail and end in diversion, restitution, or a withhold of adjudication. A second-degree misdemeanor tampering charge with no theft and modest damage is routinely resolved through the Hillsborough State Attorney’s Office Misdemeanor Intervention Program, which is available to first-time offenders with the consent of the assigned prosecutor and results in the charge being dropped when the participant completes the conditions, usually including restitution to the machine’s owner. In our experience the owner’s repair estimate drives everything: it sets the criminal mischief degree, it sets the restitution figure, and it determines whether the prosecutor sees a misdemeanor or a felony.

Parking meter cases in Tampa involve a second party. The City of Tampa operates its own parking division and pay stations, so a damaged meter produces both a criminal case and a city claim for the repair cost, and the city’s parking enforcement records are the State’s evidence of what the meter contained. Vending machine cases in Hillsborough County typically arise at apartment complexes, laundromats, hospitals, schools, and the University of South Florida campus, where the host business’s surveillance video is the primary evidence and the machine’s route operator provides the loss and damage figures.

How Do Our Attorneys Defend Vending Machine and Parking Meter Charges?

By separating the statute’s three elements and forcing the State to prove each one, and by controlling the value evidence that decides the degree:

1. Identity. Most of these cases rest on surveillance video of a person near a machine at night. We obtain the full video, not the still frames the officer selected, and test whether it actually shows the accused doing anything to the machine.
2. The act. Section 877.08 requires molesting, opening, breaking, damaging, or inserting something into the machine. Standing near a machine that was already damaged, or taking product from one that was already open, is not the act the statute punishes.
3. Intent to commit larceny. Frustration with a machine that took money is not intent to steal. Without proof of intent, the charge is subsection (2) tampering, which can never become a felony under section 877.08.
4. The prior conviction. Under Brehm, a felony charge under subsection (4) requires the State to plead and prove a prior conviction under subsection (3), not under subsection (2) and not for some other offense. We obtain the judgment in the prior case and verify what it was.
5. Value. In theft and criminal mischief cases the operator’s estimate is the State’s entire proof of degree. We demand the repair invoice, the service records showing what the machine actually contained, and the depreciation of a used machine, because a $1,000 repair estimate for a machine worth $600 does not survive cross-examination.
6. The search. Officers who stop a person walking away from a machine frequently search pockets and bags without probable cause. Coins and tools found in an unlawful search are suppressed, and the case usually ends with them.
7. Disposition. Where the evidence is strong, restitution paid early, a Misdemeanor Intervention Program referral, or a withhold of adjudication keeps a conviction off the record and preserves eligibility to seal or expunge.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County criminal defense page. Related articles cover theft charges in Florida and criminal mischief in Florida, the two statutes prosecutors most often charge in place of section 877.08.

What Should You Do If You Are Charged Under Section 877.08?

Do not pay the machine’s owner or the city directly, and do not explain what happened to the officer or the property manager, because in these cases the explanation is usually the only evidence of intent. Keep the notice to appear and calendar the court date; missing it converts a 60-day misdemeanor into a warrant. Preserve anything that supports your account, including receipts or bank records showing you paid the machine, photographs of a machine that was already damaged, and the names of anyone who saw what happened. If you were searched, write down where you were, what the officer said, and what was taken from you while the details are fresh, because the suppression motion is often the strongest part of the case.

Frequently Asked Questions About Vending Machine and Parking Meter Crimes in Florida

Is breaking into a vending machine a felony in Florida?

Not for a first offense. Tampering with a coin-operated machine under section 877.08 is a second-degree misdemeanor whether or not the person intended to steal, and it becomes a third-degree felony only on a second conviction for tampering with intent to commit larceny. Prosecutors can reach a felony on a first offense only by charging grand theft, felony criminal mischief, or possession of burglary tools under separate statutes.

What is the penalty for tampering with a parking meter in Florida?

Up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine for a first offense under section 877.08, plus restitution to the city or county that owns the meter. If the damage to the meter reaches $1,000, the State can charge felony criminal mischief with up to five years in prison. Our attorneys treat the repair estimate as the central fact in every parking meter case.

Can I be charged with theft for taking a snack from a vending machine that was already broken?

Yes, for theft of the snack, which is petit theft of the second degree if it is worth less than $100. You have not committed the tampering offense under section 877.08, because that statute punishes the act of molesting, opening, or breaking the machine, and taking from a machine someone else already opened is not that act.

Is kicking a vending machine that took my money a crime?

It can be charged as tampering under section 877.08(2), which requires only that the act be done “maliciously or mischievously,” or as criminal mischief if the kick caused damage. It is not tampering with intent to commit larceny, so it can never be a felony under that statute, and in our experience prosecutors decline or divert these cases when the person can show the machine took their money.

Does possessing vending machine keys make me guilty of a crime?

Not by itself. Possession of burglary tools under section 810.06 requires proof that you intended to use the tools to commit a burglary or a criminal trespass, and under Desin v. State the Florida Supreme Court has held that tampering with a vending machine counts as that trespass. Keys, a pry bar, or a drill found near a damaged machine are the evidence the State uses to argue intent, and because the tools charge is a felony while the tampering is a misdemeanor, The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. contests that inference in every case where the client had a lawful reason to have them.

Can a vending machine or parking meter charge be dismissed or expunged?

Yes. First-time misdemeanor tampering charges in Hillsborough County are frequently resolved through the Misdemeanor Intervention Program, which results in the charge being dropped after completion and restitution, and a dropped charge can be expunged by a defendant with no prior adjudication. A withhold of adjudication after a plea can be sealed. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. structures these dispositions with the record in mind, because the misdemeanor is rarely the problem; the permanent theft arrest is.

If you or a family member has been arrested or received a notice to appear for tampering with a vending machine or parking meter, theft, or criminal mischief anywhere in Tampa Bay, the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, will obtain the video and the operator’s records before they disappear, challenge the intent and value evidence, and pursue diversion before arraignment. Call (813) 727-7159. Surveillance systems at apartment complexes and laundromats typically overwrite within days, and the State’s filing decision follows within weeks.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.