Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 934.01 (2025)

Legislative findings.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

934.01 Legislative findings.—On the basis of its own investigations and of published studies, the Legislature makes the following findings:

(1) Wire communications are normally conducted through the use of facilities which form part of an intrastate network. The same facilities are used for interstate and intrastate communications.

(2) In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, and to prevent the obstruction of intrastate commerce, it is necessary for the Legislature to define the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized and to prohibit any unauthorized interception of such communications and the use of the contents thereof in evidence in courts and administrative proceedings.

(3) Organized criminals make extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission is an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the administration of justice.

(4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court. Interception of wire and oral communications should further be limited to certain major types of offenses and specific categories of crime with assurance that the interception is justified and that the information obtained thereby will not be misused.

History.—s. 1, ch. 69-17.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 43 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Stalley v. ADS All. Data Sys., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 670 (M.D. Fla. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stalley v. ADS All. Data Sys., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 670 (M.D. Fla. 2013). · cites it 8× “for alleged violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA), Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq. (Doc. #2). The FSCA prohibits a party to a conversation from recording the conversation — including wire, oral or electronic communications— without the consent of all…”

Odom v. State, 403 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1981). · cites it 2× “§ 934.01(4), Fla. Stat. (1975). Chapter 934 declares that it is lawful for a law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception…”

Jenkins v. State, 978 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2008). · cites it 2× “(2006) ("In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, and to prevent the obstruction of intrastate commerce, it is necessary for the Legislature to define the circumstances and…”

Delgado v. State, 948 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 2× “See § 934.01, Fla. Stat. (2002) (making legislative findings); § 934.”

Zuppardi v. State, 367 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1978). · cites it 4× “[16] § 934.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1975). [17] 272 So.”

United States v. Harvey, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1983). · cites it 2× “The application was made and authorization was granted pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 934.01, et seq., the Florida State analogue to Title III.”

Gardner v. Bradenton Herald, Inc., 413 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1982). · cites it 6× “ On the basis of its own investigations and of published studies, the legislature makes the following findings: * * * * * * (2) In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, and to…”

State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “(2001); Fla. Stat. § 934.01 , et seq. (2001); Ga.”

State v. Otte, 887 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 934.01(3), Fla. Stat. (1999). In light of the legislative findings and the purposes of both the federal and state wiretap provisions, we agree with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which, employing a similar analysis, concluded that the state is not required to make a separate…”

Mozo v. State, 632 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). · cites it 2× “292 (1985) (Historical Note to § 934.01). [4] In Tsavaris , the greater protection referred to was the requirement of the consent of all parties to a conversation in order to permit the legal recording of the conversation, as opposed to the federal act's requirement of the…”

United States v. Sylvester Anthony Domme, Jr. & Thomas Allen Domme, 753 F.2d 950 (11th Cir. 1985). “Fla. Stat.Ann. § 934.01 et seq. (West 1973 & 1974-83 Supp.”

Tollett v. State, 272 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1973). · cites it 2× “, enacted as Chapter 69-17 at the 1969 legislative session and particularly Section 934.01(4) thereof, which reads in part: "(4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has…”

Show all 43 citing cases →

— 934.01(2) — 7 cases

Jenkins v. State, 978 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2008). “(2006) ("In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, and to prevent the obstruction of intrastate commerce, it is necessary for the Legislature to define the circumstances and…”

Zuppardi v. State, 367 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1978). “[16] § 934.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1975). [17] 272 So.”

Jenkins v. State, 924 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Davis v. State, 529 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

Abdo v. State, 144 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

— 934.01(3) — 2 cases

State v. Otte, 887 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2004). “§ 934.01(3), Fla. Stat. (1999). In light of the legislative findings and the purposes of both the federal and state wiretap provisions, we agree with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which, employing a similar analysis, concluded that the state is not required to make a separate…”

Zuppardi v. State, 367 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1978). “[16] § 934.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1975). [17] 272 So.”

— 934.01(4) — 8 cases

Odom v. State, 403 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1981). “§ 934.01(4), Fla. Stat. (1975). Chapter 934 declares that it is lawful for a law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception…”

Tollett v. State, 272 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1973). “, enacted as Chapter 69-17 at the 1969 legislative session and particularly Section 934.01(4) thereof, which reads in part: "(4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has…”

Morningstar v. State, 405 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Palmer v. State, 448 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

Alea v. State, 265 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

— 934.01(4)(a) — 1 case

Payne v. State, 562 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.