What is the Castle Doctrine in Florida?
What I’ve come to understand as Florida’s Castle Doctrine law is the legal right of self-defense. The name for this law refers to the longstanding notion that you have the right to protect yourself or your castle (or home, being more general) with lethal force without incurring legal liability if you see fit to do so. The proverbial "stand your ground" understanding.
Put another way, Florida’s Castle Doctrine law means that, within certain limitations, you do not have a duty to retreat, and instead may be justified in using or threatening to use deadly force in defense of yourself against another , if:
Under Florida Statutes section 776.012(1)
Subject to the law’s listed exceptions and limitations, a person is justified in using or threatening to use nondeadly physical force if he or she "reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend him or herself or another against the other persons imminent use of unlawful force."
These sweeping Castle Doctrine protections for homeowners, business owners, and visitors to property are understood to be rooted in Florida Statutes section 776.013.
Section 776.013(2) defines lethal force pursuant to this statute, as including:
We’ll keep an eye on any changes in Florida law as they pertain to Castle Doctrine principles.
History of Castle Doctrine
Castle Doctrine has a long history both at the common law and in state statutes. Florida codified its version in the Florida Stand Your Ground Act of 2005 (FSA 776.012). Florida Castle Doctrine expands the traditional common law "castle" doctrine to an "any place" meaning that you are allowed to meet force with force including deadly force inside your home, on your property, and in any other place (other than your dwelling or property) where you have the right to be at the time of the incident. This expands the traditional common law castle doctrine to public parks, work, walkways, public transportation, etc.
The doctrine is so basic as to be an instinctual reflex. Fortified by the notions of self-defense and home-defense, most people, not just lawyers, would accept the proposition that you have the right to defend yourself against physical attack and that you can go home after work at 6pm. The idea that there should be a law that says that you have the right to go home and defend yourself against a physical attack with physical force, even deadly physical force, seems ridiculous.
The Castle Doctrine is a natural corollary of Stand Your Ground. If you don’t have to retreat, then you shouldn’t have to retreat to your castle. The Castle Doctrine, in Florida, is the codification of the right of self-defense in your house, property, and beyond and indeed, the biggest expansion of the law of self-defense in Florida and the rest of the country.
As evidenced by this fact alone, Florida has the most expansive law of self-defense, which is different from other states, in the country. Florida’s law has guaranteed immunity from prosecution where in other states it simply allows a justification used at trial. Other states like Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, and North Dakota have laws like this but haven’t ever enacted them.
Application of the Castle Doctrine
The legal scenarios where these situations play out are categorized by certain factors, including the location in which the shooting takes place, the nature of the confrontation, the victim and aggressor’s relationship, and the activity both parties are engaged in at the time of the incident.
Scenario 1: The Home Invasion
You’re at home when you suddenly hear somebody forcing their way through the front door. You can’t identify the person (it’s dark outside), and in-surprise, you’re out of bullets. Fearing for your safety, you rush outside to confront the intruder without a weapon.
The law: Under the Florida Castle Doctrine, you have a right to use deadly force when your home is invaded, as you have no (safe) alternative between that or potentially suffering bodily harm or worse. You don’t, however, have the right to pursue and challenge the intruder. You may only stop the threat so much as the threat continues (thus the "homestead" stipulation).
Scenario 2: The Nuisance Neighbor
You’ve lived peacefully next to the same family for years. Between the foreclosure crisis and the real estate downturn, the house has gone vacant, and drug dealers have moved in. For years, they’ve been selling to people who stop by for a brief visit (and equally brief stay). They’re an issue, but they’re not armed.
The law: In this case, mischief is one thing. You have to pick your fights. You’re not allowed to apply more force than is necessary to protect yourself against a real threat, such as a firearm. You may ‘stand your ground’ if the conflict comes to you (and it shouldn’t, given Florida law’s ‘duty to retreat’ in public spaces).
Scenario 3: The Domestic Dispute
You’re out with your girlfriend. Out of nowhere, your wife suddenly marches up and punches your girlfriend in the face. You’re left with two options: Take the abuse, or defend your new relationship – by whatever means necessary.
The law: Although some states take ‘battered spouse’ into account when it comes to self-defense, Florida does not. If the altercation is Noun A versus Noun B, armed or not, and the force applied is reasonable given the aggressor’s intent, it’s considered self-defense. That said, nothing in this situation suggests the use of a gun – or the legal protection of the Castle Doctrine.
Limitations of Castle Doctrine
While the Castle Doctrine provides certain presumptions in a self-defense claim, it is not an absolute guarantee that all acts of deadly force will be immune from prosecution. As with all areas of the Florida criminal codes, the Castle Doctrine still has limitations. The Castle Doctrine does not apply to situations where the suspect is using or attempting to use non-deadly force against or to enter into an unoccupied car. The law also has exceptions for circumstances of a right of entry, such as if the suspect is attempting entry to the occupant’s car but does not intend to use unlawful force. Additionally, the Castle Doctrine does not apply if the occupant of the home is the original aggressor, or if the person claiming self-defense unlawfully entered the residence or its curtilage (legally defined as the area immediately surrounding a residence and used by the occupants in an intimate manner, such as the backyard). The Florida Senate Bill Analysis on the most recent bill that exempts home-invaders, Batterers and Escapers: CC 16B-02-1/23/2005, states: "Florida courts have held that under certain circumstances an occupant (including a tenant, guest or invitee) may have a duty to retreat before using force. Furthermore, if the occupant is not initially attacked but leaves ‘in the heat of passion’ and re-enters the residence intending to commit a crime, the occupant risks simultaneous prosecution for battery (if the occupant physically harms the original aggressor) and burglary (if the occupant unlawfully re-enters)." Further, the provisions of sections 776.071, 776.081, 776.082, 776.083, and 776.086 of the 2004 Florida Statutes literally contradict the language of s. 776.013. That is, while section 776.031 permits the use of deadly force to prevent or stop a forcible felony, including aggravated assault or battery, section 776.071 requires retreat when safe to avoid confrontation involving a simple assault or battery.
Case Law Examples
Recent case studies involving the Castle Doctrine in Florida have further illustrated the nuances of when the law applies. For example, a 2017 case involved a former Seminole County sheriff’s deputy who fatally shot a burglar in his garage at 3:18 in the morning. The burglar was carrying a pillow case full of items that were stolen from another house. The deputy argued that the shooting was justified but the local state attorney announced that the case would go to a grand jury for review.
Another case out of Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals involved a woman who was charged with manslaughter for killing a man who was trying to break into her car and stealing it. While the Court did not deny her Stand Your Ground claim, they also did not accept it and instead withdrew it for further hearings . Many feel that the decision is significant because it indicates that the Court will likely uphold Stand Your Ground claims, but the law is meant to be reserved for extreme situations.
Even though Florida has laws that protect homeowners from criminal or civil prosecution if they use deadly force against an intruder in certain cases, many Castle Doctrine cases end up being evaluated by attorneys before a trial proceeds. Each case is assessed on its individual merits to determine if there is evidence to support the Castle Doctrine claim.
Because the Castle Doctrine can be complicated, it is important for people facing criminal prosecution for allegedly violating it to discuss the case with a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.
Public Opinion and Controversy
Despite the many protections afforded by the new law in Florida, debate continues over the merits and pitfalls of the "Stand Your Ground" law and Castle Doctrine. Supporters argue that the law protects the rights of citizens to access to a firearm for the purpose of protecting themselves and their families in their home, their place of business, and while traveling anywhere. Critics, on the other hand, contend that the law lacks sufficient safeguards against misuse and abuse, points to a range of incidents where the law has been abused, and alleges that it enables and encourages a culture where people are more aggressive and resort to guns rather than de-escalating a situation.
Proponents of the Castle Doctrine argue that the law is about freedom. In their view, it provides balance and common sense for when someone can defend themselves with deadly force. Some further contend that the law is designed to protect people in a society where crime is on the rise. In their view, despite Florida enjoying a drop in crime in 2012, an increased rate of violent crime was reported in 2013. Proponents also suggest that the law is designed to offer protection and peace of mind to law-abiding citizens who have to make split-second decisions to protect their families. As such, they view the law in survival terms.
Critics argue that the law permits a person to use deadly force in situations that do not warrant such force. Some argue that the law is being abused by aggressors and fails to distinguish between victims and aggressors. In their view, the law fails to punish aggressors standing their ground to shoot first and ask questions later. They condemn a culture that is becoming more hostile and aggressive and increasing violence in Florida.
Supporters of the law point to a decrease in certain crimes such as murder and car-jacking since the law was passed, but critics note that other crimes such as aggravated assault and robbery have increased since passage of the law. Some critics question if the law enables people to commit or increases certain crimes because they are less likely to suffer consequences for their actions.
In addition, some critics are concerned the law will have particularly negative effects on minorities and the underprivileged. They contend that the law may allow pre-menstrual women to be charged with pre-meditated first-degree murder for a killing in self-defense because the statute excludes a mental flaw such as temporary insanity as an affirmative defense. It may have the same effect on children and senior citizens.
Another criticism of the law however is that it only applies to force used in the home, place of business, and while traveling. Critics suggest that although more technical than aesthetic, the law should apply to all locations for the sake of consistency.
Legal Guidance and Cautions
The foregoing is for informational and entertainment purposes only, and is not to be taken as legal advice. The right to use deadly force under the Castle Doctrine is not absolute. There are many circumstances that could come into play that would make a Florida resident who believes they are acting in self-defense liable for the death or injury of another person . For example, if the individual who used what they believe is reasonable force was the initial aggressor, or if he or she provoked the use of force against him or her, then their claim of self-defense might fail. It is never a good idea for anyone to take the law into his or her own hands. Knowing your rights under the Castle Doctrine is important; however, it should not be a substitute for hiring an attorney if the situation so requires.