Mocombe v. State
The Third District reversed denial of a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss a charge under section 812.015(7) for using an antishoplifting/inventory control device countermeasure, where the undisputed facts showed only a pocketknife was recovered and there was no evidence it was designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat such devices. Applying the plain statutory definition, the court held the item and facts failed to satisfy the elements of the offense, requiring dismissal of the charge.
Key facts
- Mocombe was charged with using an antishoplifting/inventory control device countermeasure under Florida Statute section 812.015(7); only a generic pocketknife was recovered with no evidence it was designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat such devices.
- The trial court denied Mocombe's Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss based on the undisputed facts.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces a narrow, literal reading of section 812.015(7)'s countermeasure element, giving defense counsel a strong basis to challenge charges where the alleged 'device' is an ordinary object lacking… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.