Florida Statute 92.54 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCE

Chapter 92
WITNESSES, RECORDS, AND DOCUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 92.54

92.54 Use of closed-circuit television and audio-video communication technology in proceedings involving a victim or witness under the age of 18 or who has an intellectual disability.—

(1) Upon motion and hearing in camera and upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that a victim or witness under the age of 18 or who has an intellectual disability will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm due to the presence of the defendant if such victim or witness is required to testify in open court, or is unavailable as defined in s. 90.804(1), the trial court may order that the testimony of the victim or witness be taken outside of the courtroom and shown by means of closed-circuit television or through audio-video communication technology.

(2) The motion may be filed by the victim or witness; the attorney, parent, legal guardian, or guardian ad litem of the victim or witness; the prosecutor; the defendant or the defendant’s counsel; or the trial judge on his or her own motion.

(3) Only the judge, the prosecutor, the defendant, the attorney for the defendant, the operators of the videotape equipment, an interpreter, and some other person who, in the opinion of the court, contributes to the well-being of the child or the person who has an intellectual disability and who will not be a witness in the case may be in the room during the recording of the testimony.

(4) During the victim’s or witness’s testimony by closed-circuit television or through audio-video communication technology, the court may require the defendant to view the testimony from the courtroom. In such a case, the court shall permit the defendant to observe and hear the testimony of the victim or witness, but must ensure that the victim or witness cannot hear or see the defendant. The defendant’s right to assistance of counsel, which includes the right to immediate and direct communication with counsel conducting cross-examination, must be protected and, upon the defendant’s request, such communication must be provided by any appropriate electronic method.

(5) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section.

History.—s. 6, ch. 85-53; s. 12, ch. 87-224; s. 2, ch. 93-131; s. 22, ch. 94-154; s. 1380, ch. 95-147; s. 5, ch. 2013-162; s. 2, ch. 2016-199; s. 8, ch. 2023-302.

F.S. 92.54 on Google Scholar

F.S. 92.54 on CourtListener

Amendments to 92.54

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 92.54

Total Results: 49

State v. Townsend

635 So. 2d 949, 1994 WL 137938

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1994 | Docket: 368823

Cited 82 times | Published

(failure to make specific findings of fact under section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), which section impacts

Hopkins v. State

632 So. 2d 1372, 1994 WL 11604

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 1994 | Docket: 2514787

Cited 65 times | Published

by failing to make the findings required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes, prior to allowing a child

Feller v. State

637 So. 2d 911, 1994 WL 137846

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1994 | Docket: 368820

Cited 38 times | Published

relates to the specific findings required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes.[2]Hopkins v. State, 632

Kenneth Cumbie v. Harry K. Singletary

991 F.2d 715, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 12317, 1993 WL 148947

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 26, 1993 | Docket: 614881

Cited 22 times | Published

court — the approximate language of Fla.Stat. § 92.54(1) (1987) 2 — the counsel- *718

Myles v. State

602 So. 2d 1278, 1992 WL 156899

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 1992 | Docket: 1321783

Cited 20 times | Published

chambers. This last ruling was made pursuant to section 92.54(4), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides:

Dooley v. State

743 So. 2d 65, 1999 WL 641810

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 1999 | Docket: 526064

Cited 13 times | Published

court failed to make the findings required by section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Upon retrial, the

United States v. Hafiz Muhammad Sher Ali Khan

794 F.3d 1288, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12724, 2015 WL 4480919

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 23, 2015 | Docket: 2676637

Cited 12 times | Published

(9th ed.2009); see also 22 C.F.R. § 92.54. The Department of State has statutory authority

Mathis v. State

682 So. 2d 175, 1996 WL 570217

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 8, 1996 | Docket: 1276403

Cited 12 times | Published

the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, it properly raised the issue of Hopkins' constitutional

Elwell v. State

954 So. 2d 104, 2007 WL 1201597

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2007 | Docket: 1163670

Cited 9 times | Published

the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989) (the statute allowing

Sampson v. State

541 So. 2d 733, 1989 WL 34577

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 1989 | Docket: 1516493

Cited 8 times | Published

the court complied with the requirements of section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes, and made the necessary

Hafiz Muhammad Khan v. United States

928 F.3d 1264

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 3, 2019 | Docket: 15878881

Cited 7 times | Published

of courts towards each other." 22 C.F.R. § 92.54 . But as the government explained at trial

Seaman v. State

608 So. 2d 71, 1992 WL 295437

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 1992 | Docket: 1449930

Cited 7 times | Published

circuit television pursuant to the procedure of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989). The child psychologist

Coney v. State

643 So. 2d 654, 1994 WL 534980

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 5, 1994 | Docket: 1744330

Cited 6 times | Published

victim to testify by closed-circuit television. See § 92.54(5), Fla. Stat. (1991); Hopkins v. State, 632 So

Myles v. State

582 So. 2d 71, 1991 WL 105518

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 1991 | Docket: 1716098

Cited 6 times | Published

violated the express language nor principles of Section 92.54(4), Florida Statutes (1989). The statute provides:

Sanders v. State

568 So. 2d 1014, 1990 WL 171600

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 1990 | Docket: 1526627

Cited 5 times | Published

specific findings on the record, required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989), as a predicate

Fricke v. State

561 So. 2d 597, 1990 WL 37419

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1990 | Docket: 1480406

Cited 5 times | Published

omitted) (emphasis added). Justice O'Connor cited Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1987), authorizing a child

Feller v. State

617 So. 2d 1091, 1993 WL 116636

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1993 | Docket: 1512475

Cited 4 times | Published

to make findings under a companion statute, section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989) (allowing closed

Feller v. State

617 So. 2d 1091, 1993 WL 116636

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1993 | Docket: 1512475

Cited 4 times | Published

to make findings under a companion statute, section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989) (allowing closed

Cann v. State

958 So. 2d 545, 2007 WL 1687573

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2007 | Docket: 1734967

Cited 3 times | Published

to observe her demeanor over the television. Section 92.54, Florida Statutes, authorizes the court to allow

Pippin v. State

626 So. 2d 1091, 1993 WL 474090

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 19, 1993 | Docket: 1685076

Cited 3 times | Published

made on the state's motion filed pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (requesting that the minor

Hopkins v. State

608 So. 2d 33, 1992 WL 170976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 1992 | Docket: 1449059

Cited 3 times | Published

and certify a question to the supreme court. Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), permits a trial judge

State v. Villarreal

990 So. 2d 1166, 2008 WL 4146669

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2008 | Docket: 1687951

Cited 2 times | Published

United States. In addition, the State, citing to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2007), argued that the defendant's

Lewis v. State

626 So. 2d 1073, 1993 WL 462764

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1993 | Docket: 1286246

Cited 2 times | Published

closed-circuit television, which is authorized under Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), we initially agree

DAD v. State

566 So. 2d 257, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5901, 1990 WL 125522

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1990 | Docket: 547637

Cited 2 times | Published

this case to comply with the requirements of Section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (1987), in order to justify

Overholt v. State

110 So. 3d 530, 2013 WL 1316343, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5346

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2013 | Docket: 60230344

Cited 1 times | Published

court should have followed the procedure of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2012), and used a closed

Oliver v. State

125 So. 3d 244, 2013 WL 692434, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3192

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 2013 | Docket: 60235806

Cited 1 times | Published

age of twelve. The State moved, pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2010), to place a projector

Rogers v. State

40 So. 3d 888, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10686, 2010 WL 2866989

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2010 | Docket: 1667029

Cited 1 times | Published

may testify by closed circuit television. See § 92.54, Fla. Stat. (2009). Nevertheless, these exceptions

Rogers v. State

40 So. 3d 888, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10686, 2010 WL 2866989

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2010 | Docket: 1667029

Cited 1 times | Published

may testify by closed circuit television. See § 92.54, Fla. Stat. (2009). Nevertheless, these exceptions

State v. Tarrago

800 So. 2d 300, 2001 WL 1335251

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 2001 | Docket: 1283168

Cited 1 times | Published

E.H. does not fall within the parameters of section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (2000). That section provides:

Dennis v. State

782 So. 2d 939, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4033, 2001 WL 313589

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2001 | Docket: 64804853

Cited 1 times | Published

make specific findings of fact mandated by section 92.54 1, Florida Statutes (1999), prior to allowing

In Re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Juv. Pro.

649 So. 2d 1370, 1995 WL 27510

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1995 | Docket: 1693792

Cited 1 times | Published

television), to conform to 1993 revisions to section 92.54, Florida Statutes; (5) rule 8.120 (post-disposition

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure

608 So. 2d 478, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 709, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1869, 1992 WL 319938

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 1992 | Docket: 64692020

Cited 1 times | Published

broad because it goes beyond the language of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1991), which allows a child

Gaither v. State

581 So. 2d 922, 1991 WL 95628

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 1991 | Docket: 1683898

Cited 1 times | Published

1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ((alleged violation of section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989), is not fundamental

Spoerri v. State

561 So. 2d 604, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 959

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 1990 | Docket: 1740326

Cited 1 times | Published

required to testify in court," as required by Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989). At retrial, if the

State v. Diamond

553 So. 2d 1185, 1988 WL 86349

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1989 | Docket: 1675668

Cited 1 times | Published

testimony of victim or witness under age 16. Section 92.54 Use of closed circuit television in proceedings

M.L.K. v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 20, 2025 | Docket: 71154549

Published

involving minor victims or witnesses. Although section 92.54, Florida Statutes, authorizes remote testimony

RON ORLANDO FIGUEROA v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2023 | Docket: 67891577

Published

abusing his minor stepdaughter. Pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2022), Appellee, the State

Ronald Lee Coleman v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 2020 | Docket: 18435265

Published

in part, a confrontation clause issue under section 92.54, Florida Statutes, which provides that a trial

EGI-VSR, LLC v. Juan Carlos Celestino Coderch Mitjans

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 25, 2020 | Docket: 17294856

Published

court to perform some judicial act.” 22 C.F.R. § 92.54.

Jonathan A. Knight v. State of Florida

254 So. 3d 642

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 2018 | Docket: 7819876

Published

closed-circuit television system pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes. The State began by explaining

Farmer v. State

128 So. 3d 248, 2013 WL 6478857, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19644

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 2013 | Docket: 60237041

Published

via closed circuit television as permitted by section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2008). Testimony from other

McLaughlin v. State

79 So. 3d 226, 2012 WL 469830, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2275

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2012 | Docket: 60305268

Published

started, the State made a motion pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2010)2, to place a screen

Hughes v. State

819 So. 2d 815, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4436, 2002 WL 500268

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2002 | Docket: 64816072

Published

insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1997)(permitting the use

Ritchie v. State

720 So. 2d 261, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12305, 1998 WL 658289

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 1998 | Docket: 64784080

Published

basis for the ruling.’” Id. at 1376, quoting section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes.2 Further, the “mere recitation

Sigmon v. State

641 So. 2d 847, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 311, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 913, 1994 WL 245657

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1994 | Docket: 64750492

Published

error in failure to make findings required by section 92.54 before allowing child witness to testify by

Sigmon v. State

622 So. 2d 57, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7577, 1993 WL 264686

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 1993 | Docket: 64697985

Published

testify by closed-circuit television under section 92.54, Florida Statutes, that was “couched in terms

Lewine v. State

619 So. 2d 334, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5348, 1993 WL 153763

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 1993 | Docket: 64696587

Published

Lewine’s request for co-counsel. Pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1991), the victim testified

Disinger v. State

569 So. 2d 824, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8364, 1990 WL 165350

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1990 | Docket: 64654308

Published

the child cannot hear or see the defendant.” Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1985), provides for the use

D.A.D. v. State

566 So. 2d 257, 1990 WL 125522

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1990 | Docket: 64652699

Published

this case to comply with the requirements of Section 92.-54(1), Florida Statutes (1987), in order to justify