120 So. 3d 41
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cenatis was charged with use of an antishoplifting device countermeasure (felony) and petit theft.
- A booster bag—described as a shopping bag lined with aluminum foil or similar materials—was used to defeat store sensors during theft.
- Store personnel observed Cenatis and a codefendant handling, placing, and stealing merchandise inside the booster bag.
- The bag was presented at trial and described as layered with aluminum foil and held together with adhesive; it appeared ordinary but was heavier.
- The trial court denied motions for acquittal, and the jury found Cenatis guilty on both counts; conviction and sentence were timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a foil-lined shopping bag constitutes a countermeasure under s. 812.015(7). | Cenatis contends foil-lined bag is not a device countermeasure. | State argues the bag defeats antishoplifting sensors and falls within the statute. | Yes; plain language covers altered ordinary items used to defeat sensors. |
| Whether Blunt controls or the bag’s modification places it within the statute's reach. | Blunt prohibits only unaltered use of foil; not applicable. | Modified/combined ordinary items are within the statute. | Distinguished from Blunt; the modified bag fits the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blunt, 744 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (foil used to evade sensors; not an item designed to defeat sensors; distinguishable)
- Ortiz v. State, 36 So.3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (de novo standard for judgment of acquittal and statutory interpretation)
- Allen v. State, 82 So.3d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)