Home
Menu
904-383-7448
F.S. 870.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 870.01 on Casetext

Amendments to 870.01


The 2022 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 870
AFFRAYS; RIOTS; ROUTS; UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 870.01 Florida Statutes and Case Law
870.01 Affrays and riots.
(1) A person commits an affray if he or she engages, by mutual consent, in fighting with another person in a public place to the terror of the people. A person who commits an affray commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property.

A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person commits aggravated rioting if, in the course of committing a riot, he or she:
(a) Participates with 25 or more other persons;
(b) Causes great bodily harm to a person not participating in the riot;
(c) Causes property damage in excess of $5,000;
(d) Displays, uses, threatens to use, or attempts to use a deadly weapon; or
(e) By force, or threat of force, endangers the safe movement of a vehicle traveling on a public street, highway, or road.

A person who commits aggravated rioting commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person commits inciting a riot if he or she willfully incites another person to participate in a riot, resulting in a riot or imminent danger of a riot. A person who commits inciting a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) A person commits aggravated inciting a riot if he or she:
(a) Incites a riot resulting in great bodily harm to another person not participating in the riot;
(b) Incites a riot resulting in property damage in excess of $5,000; or
(c) Supplies a deadly weapon to another person or teaches another person to prepare a deadly weapon with intent that the deadly weapon be used in a riot for an unlawful purpose.

A person who commits aggravated inciting a riot commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Except for a violation of subsection (1), a person arrested for a violation of this section shall be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to bail in accordance with chapter 903.
(7) This section does not prohibit constitutionally protected activity such as a peaceful protest.
History.s. 35, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2406; GS 3239; RGS 5072; CGL 7174; s. 1, ch. 67-407; s. 1125, ch. 71-136; s. 15, ch. 2021-6; s. 67, ch. 2022-4.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: August 29, 2022
F.S. 870.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 870.01 on Casetext

Amendments to 870.01


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 870.01
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

870.01 1 - DISORDERLY CONDUCT - AFFRAY - M: F
870.01 2 - RIOT - INCITE OR ENCOURAGE - F: T


Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S870.01
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 870.01.


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. State v. Beasley

    317 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1975)   Cited 26 times
    The constitutionality of this state's riot statute, Section 870.01(2), Florida Statutes (1973), is the issue in this cause. The appellee was charged by information with the offense of riot in that he, on February 14, 1973, "did incite or encourage a riot, in violation of 870.01(2), Florida Statutes." No further specifics were set forth in the information.
    PAGE 752
  2. D.L.B. v. State

    707 So. 2d 844 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 12 times
    Appellant, a juvenile who was found to be delinquent under the affray statute (§ 870.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1995)), challenges the statute as unconstitutionally vague. He also maintains that the court erred by failing to conduct his delinquency disposition hearing properly, by imposing an indefinite term of community control and by imposing a fine after orally announcing that a fine would not be imposed. While we conclude that the affray statute is not impermissibly vague and that the delinquency disposition hearing was not properly conducted, we also conclude that the sentence imposed must be clarified and the $50 fine must be stricken.
  3. Dream Defenders v. Governor of the State

    No. 21-13489 (11th Cir. Jan. 10, 2023)
    Governor DeSantis's position that § 870.01( 2) narrowed the common-law definition of "riot" rests on the assumption that there is a distinction between a "tumultuous" disturbance of the peace, as required under the common law, and a "violent" one, as required by the statute. See DeSantis Appellant's Br. at 23. Although he argues that "'violent' is more specific and narrower than 'tumultuous,'" he provides no example of a public disturbance that would be tumultuous but not violent. Id. at 23-24. At oral argument Sheriff Williams also shifted positions as to the difference between the statutory and common-law definitions, suggesting that § 870.01( 2) narrowed the common-law definition by adding a second layer to the intent requirement: those assembled must share a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, and the individual facing prosecution must willfully participate. In this way, Sherriff Williams argued, § 870.01( 2) provides additional protection for peaceful protestors. But it is not clear how the statute's intent requirement offers greater protection to peaceful protestors or innocent bystanders. At common law a person…
    PAGE 23
  4. The Dream Defenders v. DeSantis

    559 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (N.D. Fla. 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. In their requested relief, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the enforcement of Section 15 of HB1. ECF No. 64 ¶ 6. However, Section 15 is part of a bill that amended section 870.01. This Court cannot enjoin the enforcement of a bill; rather, it can enjoin parties from enforcing a statute. And so, Plaintiffs’ requested relief can be construed as enjoining the enforcement of section 870.01 as amended by Section 15. After questioning by this Court during the preliminary injunction hearing, Plaintiffs clarified that they only seek to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the new definition of "riot" in section 870.01(2).
    PAGE 1288
  5. C.M. v. State

    234 So. 3d 837 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Section 870.01, Florida Statutes (2015), Affrays and riots, does not provide a definition of affray; it provides only that "persons guilty of an affray shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree." § 870.01( 1). Because the statute does not define affray, courts have resorted to the common-law definition: "the fighting of two or more persons in a public place, to the terror of the people." O.A. v. State, 312 So.2d 202, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (quoting Carnley v. State, 88 Fla. 281, 102 So. 333, 334 (1924) ); accord D.L.B. v. State, 707 So.2d 844, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Therefore, "an affray by fighting ... necessarily includes assault and battery." O.A., 312 So.2d at 203 (quoting Carnley, 102 So. at 334 ); see also D.L.B., 707 So.2d at 845 (utilizing the dictionary definition of affray as "a public fight or brawl"). Although O.A. was decided when "assault and battery" was a single offense, the analysis remains valid: an affray requires two or more people to engage in batteries. See § 784.03, Fla. Stat. (1973). And self-defense is a defense to battery. S.J.C. v. State, 906 So.2d 1115, 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ; see § 776.012, Fla. Stat. (2015) ; cf…
    PAGE 840
  6. Alexandre v. City of Miami

    Case No. 16-23064-CIV-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES (S.D. Fla. Jun. 1, 2018)
    To determine whether an officer has actual probable cause or arguable probable cause, the Court looks at "the elements of the alleged crime and the operative fact pattern." Id. (quoting Brown, 608 F.3d at 735). Plaintiff was arrested and charged with incitement to riot, Florida Statute § 870.01, and resisting an officer without violence, Florida Statute § 843.02. The "riot" statute provides that "all persons guilty of a riot, or of inciting or encouraging a riot, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084." Fla. Stat. § 870.01. The statute does not define riot, but the Florida Supreme Court, in holding that the statute was not void for vagueness, relied on the common law definition of riot. State v. Beasley, 317 So. 2d 750, 752 (1975). "The term 'riot' at common law is defined as a tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three or more persons, assembled and acting with a common intent, either in executing a lawful private enterprise in a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people, or in executing an unlawful enterprise in a violent and turbulent manner." Id.
    PAGE 6
  7. Dream Defenders v. Desantis

    553 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Fla. 2021)   Cited 1 times
    Before turning to the parties’ arguments, some background is necessary. HB1's new definition of "riot" sits at the core of Plaintiffs’ suit. Prior to the Act's passage, Florida law criminalized rioting, "or ... inciting or encouraging a riot." § 870.01, Fla. Stat. (1971). Because the statute did not define riot, Florida courts relied on the common-law definition of riot. State v. Beasley , 317 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1975). HB1's section 15 amended section 870.01 to, among other things, define riot. Plaintiffs argue that this new definition "fails to clarify whether a participant in a larger demonstration where violence occurs" is guilty of rioting. ECF No. 1 ¶ 72. Plaintiffs have also moved to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing section 15. ECF No. 64.
    PAGE 1068
  8. Allen v. State

    326 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1976)   Cited 6 times
    With reference to the constitutional issue, we hold the riot statute, Section 870.01(2), Florida Statutes (1973), is constitutional in accordance with our recent decision in State v. Beasley, 317 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1975), and the restrictive construction contained therein. Under the guidelines set out in State v. Beasley, supra, the information in each of these cases is insufficient to properly charge a riot offense under Section 870.01(2), Florida Statutes (1973). The plea of nolo contendere admits, for the purpose of the case, all the facts which are well-pleaded and only those. Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1971); Peel v. State, 150 So.2d 281 (Fla.App.2d 1963). The charge is not well-pled. Both defendants properly preserved the issue on appeal. Their respective convictions under the riot counts must be reversed, without prejudice to the State to file amended informations.
    PAGE 420
  9. State v. Simpson

    347 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1977)   Cited 5 times
    § 870.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1975), which reads in its entirety:
    PAGE 415
  10. Mack v. State

    463 So. 2d 344 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
    The information filed by the state in Beasley merely stated that the defendant "did incite or encourage a riot, in violation of 870.01(2), Florida Statutes." The supreme court held that the information was inadequate, because it did not "establish circumstances justifying a clear and present danger of a riot." Id. at 753. The informations before us are much more detailed than the information in Beasley. We think the allegations of these informations allege facts and circumstances which justify a clear and present danger of riots. Accordingly, we hold that they sufficiently allege the offense of inciting a riot as proscribed by section 870.01(2).