Florida Statute 934.03 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS

Chapter 934
SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS; SURVEILLANCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 934.03

934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.—

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:

(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:

1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or

2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;

(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).

(2)(a)1. It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his or her employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his or her service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

2. Notwithstanding any other law, a provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person, may provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to a person authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications if such provider, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person, has been provided with:

a. A court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge; or

b. A certification in writing by a person specified in s. 934.09(7) that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required.

3. A provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person may not disclose the existence of any interception or the device used to accomplish the interception with respect to which the person has been furnished an order under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notice to the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure renders such person liable for the civil damages provided under s. 934.10, and such person may be prosecuted under s. 934.43. An action may not be brought against any provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09.

(b) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his or her employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. chapter 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.

(c) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic 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 and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.

(d) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.

(e) It is unlawful to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing any criminal act.

(f) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an employee of a telephone company to intercept a wire communication for the sole purpose of tracing the origin of such communication when the interception is requested by the recipient of the communication and the recipient alleges that the communication is obscene, harassing, or threatening in nature. The individual conducting the interception shall notify local police authorities within 48 hours after the time of the interception.

(g) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an employee of:

1. An ambulance service licensed pursuant to s. 401.25, a fire station employing firefighters as defined by s. 633.102, a public utility, a law enforcement agency as defined by s. 934.02(10), or any other entity with published emergency telephone numbers;

2. An agency operating an emergency telephone number “911” system established pursuant to s. 365.171; or

3. The central abuse hotline operated under s. 39.101

to intercept and record incoming wire communications; however, such employee may intercept and record incoming wire communications on designated “911” telephone numbers and published nonemergency telephone numbers staffed by trained dispatchers at public safety answering points only. It is also lawful for such employee to intercept and record outgoing wire communications to the numbers from which such incoming wire communications were placed when necessary to obtain information required to provide the emergency services being requested. For the purpose of this paragraph, the term “public utility” has the same meaning as provided in s. 366.02 and includes a person, partnership, association, or corporation now or hereafter owning or operating equipment or facilities in the state for conveying or transmitting messages or communications by telephone or telegraph to the public for compensation.

(h) It shall not be unlawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for any person:

1. To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.

2. To intercept any radio communication which is transmitted:

a. By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

b. By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including any police or fire communications system, readily accessible to the general public;

c. By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

d. By any marine or aeronautical communications system.

3. To engage in any conduct which:

a. Is prohibited by s. 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or

b. Is excepted from the application of s. 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by s. 705(b) of that act.

4. To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station of consumer electronic equipment to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference.

5. To intercept, if such person is another user of the same frequency, any radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system.

6. To intercept a satellite transmission that is not scrambled or encrypted and that is transmitted:

a. To a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or

b. As an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls, when such interception is not for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.

7. To intercept and privately view a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or to intercept a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted, if such interception is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain.

(i) It shall not be unlawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09:

1. To use a pen register or a trap and trace device as authorized under ss. 934.31-934.34 or under federal law; or

2. For a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of such service.

(j) It is not unlawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser which are transmitted to, through, or from a protected computer if:

1. The owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the communications of the computer trespasser;

2. The person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;

3. The person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the communications of the computer trespasser will be relevant to the investigation; and

4. The interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to, through, or from the computer trespasser.

(k) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a child under 18 years of age to intercept and record an oral communication if the child is a party to the communication and has reasonable grounds to believe that recording the communication will capture a statement by another party to the communication that the other party intends to commit, is committing, or has committed an unlawful sexual act or an unlawful act of physical force or violence against the child.

(l)1. It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a parent or legal guardian of a child under 18 years of age to intercept and record an oral communication if the child is a party to the communication and the parent or legal guardian has reasonable grounds to believe that recording the communication will capture a statement by another party to the communication that the other party intends to commit, is committing, or has committed an unlawful sexual act or an unlawful act of physical force or violence against the child.

2. A recording authorized under this paragraph which captures a statement by a party that the party intends to commit, is committing, or has committed an unlawful sexual act or an unlawful act of physical force or violence against a child must be provided to a law enforcement agency and may be used for the purpose of evidencing the intent to commit or the commission of a crime specified in subparagraph 1. against a child. A recording authorized under this paragraph may not be otherwise disseminated or shared.

(m) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a person who is protected under an active temporary or final injunction for repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence under s. 784.046; stalking under s. 784.0485; domestic violence under s. 741.30; or any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the person to intercept and record a wire, oral, or electronic communication received in violation of such injunction or court order. A recording authorized under this paragraph may be provided to a law enforcement agency, an attorney, or a court for the purpose of evidencing a violation of an injunction or court order if the subject of the injunction or court order prohibiting contact has been served the injunction or is on notice that the conduct is prohibited. A recording authorized under this paragraph may not be otherwise disseminated or shared.

(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.

(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication:

1. As otherwise authorized in paragraph (2)(a) or s. 934.08;

2. With the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;

3. To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or

4. Which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41.

(b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) and is not for any tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under paragraph (a) was committed is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then:

1. If the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in subparagraph (2)(h)7., the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

2. If the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.—s. 3, ch. 69-17; s. 1163, ch. 71-136; ss. 2, 3, ch. 74-249; s. 249, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 78-376; s. 187, ch. 79-164; s. 2, ch. 80-27; s. 1, ch. 87-301; s. 2, ch. 88-184; s. 2, ch. 89-269; s. 1582, ch. 97-102; s. 18, ch. 99-168; ss. 7, 9, ch. 2000-369; s. 2, ch. 2002-72; s. 30, ch. 2010-117; s. 154, ch. 2013-183; s. 1, ch. 2015-82; s. 31, ch. 2021-170; s. 1, ch. 2021-207; s. 1, ch. 2024-131.

F.S. 934.03 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.03 on CourtListener

Amendments to 934.03

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 934.03

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S934.03 1a - EAVESDROPPING - ILLEGAL INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATION - F: T

S934.03 1b - EAVESDROP EQUIP - ILLEGALLY USE DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMMUNIC - F: T

S934.03 1c - INVADE PRIVACY - ILLEGAL DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATION - F: T

S934.03 1d - DIVULGE EAVESDROP INFO - ILLEGAL USE INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION - F: T

S934.03 1e - OBSTRUCT - DISCLOSE INTERCEPT COMMUNIC OBSTR CRIM INVEST - F: T

S934.03 4b1 - EAVESDROPPING - INTERCEPT WIRE PORTION CELL/CORDLESS PHONE - M: F

S934.03 4b2 - EAVESDROPPING - INTERCEPT RADIO PORTION CELL/CORDLESS PHONE - M: S

Cases Citing Statute 934.03

Total Results: 161

United States v. Bailey

123 F.3d 1381, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 26289

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 24, 1997 | Docket: 13807

Cited 216 times | Published

obtain evidence of a criminal act.” Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(c). Furthermore, federal law governs the admissibility

Ibar v. State

938 So. 2d 451, 2006 WL 560586

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2006 | Docket: 421577

Cited 76 times | Published

the communication have given prior consent. See § 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). There is no indication

Odom v. State

403 So. 2d 936

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 1981 | Docket: 1250343

Cited 61 times | Published

interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. § 934.03(2)(c) Fla. Stat. (1975). Since the tape in question

State v. Sarmiento

397 So. 2d 643

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 15, 1981 | Docket: 1706723

Cited 60 times | Published

communication has given prior consent to the interception. § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1977). Our response to this

State v. Smith

641 So. 2d 849, 1994 WL 261441

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 1994 | Docket: 1152131

Cited 39 times | Published

constitutional right of privacy as well as section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1991).[1] Thus, the district

State v. Inciarrano

473 So. 2d 1272, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 340

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1985 | Docket: 451710

Cited 32 times | Published

between himself and the victim on the basis that section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1981), proscribed the interception

United States v. Floyd F. Capo, Amos Lisenby, Cody Lisenby, Tim Williams, John Booker

693 F.2d 1330, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 1915, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 23186

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 20, 1982 | Docket: 502350

Cited 31 times | Published

pri- or consent. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c); Fla. Stat. 934.03(2)(c) (the Florida prior consent provision

State v. Tsavaris

394 So. 2d 418

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 1981 | Docket: 1315382

Cited 30 times | Published

third degree. § 934.03(1)(a) and (c). None of the exceptions listed in section 934.03(2) applies in the

Glazner v. Glazner

347 F.3d 1212, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21014, 2003 WL 22351449

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 16, 2003 | Docket: 239047

Cited 26 times | Published

(1994); O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 (1999); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.03(1) (2001). Violation of the Georgia wiretap statute

Sarmiento v. State

371 So. 2d 1047

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 1979 | Docket: 1786029

Cited 25 times | Published

interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act." § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1977). [2] "Any person who

West v. Troelstrup

367 So. 2d 253

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 1979 | Docket: 1330301

Cited 25 times | Published

of FDCLE general orders and in violation of Section 934.03, Florida Statutes, and (2) West had capitalized

Briggs v. Salcines

392 So. 2d 263

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 1980 | Docket: 1268242

Cited 22 times | Published

Walls, 356 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1978), holds that Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1979), prohibits the secret

State v. Calhoun

479 So. 2d 241, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2677

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 1985 | Docket: 463512

Cited 16 times | Published

be violated"... (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for any

Minotty v. Baudo

42 So. 3d 824, 2010 WL 2882460

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2010 | Docket: 2396651

Cited 15 times | Published

illegal interception of communications under section 934.03, Florida Statutes. The complaint alleged that

Franco v. State

376 So. 2d 1168

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1979 | Docket: 1411375

Cited 15 times | Published

Florida Constitution (1968) and is codified in Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statute (1975): "(c) It is lawful

Shevin v. Sunbeam Television Corp.

351 So. 2d 723, 3 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1312

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 1977 | Docket: 1247365

Cited 15 times | Published

the Circuit Court of Dade County which held Section 934.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes, to be unconstitutional

Royal Health Care Services, Incorporated, D/B/A Best Care v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company

924 F.2d 215, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2713, 1991 WL 11506

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 21, 1991 | Docket: 828516

Cited 14 times | Published

before that call may be recorded. Fla.Stat. Ann. § 934.03(2)(d) (West Supp.1990). See also Tsavaris

Jacobs v. State

389 So. 2d 1054

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1980 | Docket: 1281860

Cited 14 times | Published

required when, as here, the requirements of Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977) and Tollett

Horn v. State

298 So. 2d 194

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1974 | Docket: 1439301

Cited 14 times | Published

(and other exceptions not here material) Florida Statute 934.03, F.S.A. provides in material part as follows:

Mozo v. State

632 So. 2d 623, 1994 WL 10803

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 1994 | Docket: 2516923

Cited 12 times | Published

communications as an investigative tool. See section 934.03(1)(a)-(d). Generally speaking, under the Act

State v. Scott

385 So. 2d 1044

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1980 | Docket: 1337584

Cited 12 times | Published

had insufficient time to obtain a warrant. Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), provides:

State v. Walls

356 So. 2d 294

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 1978 | Docket: 1739858

Cited 12 times | Published

communication uttered at a public meeting." Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975), provides in part:

James Eric McDonough v. Katherine Fernandez-Rundle

862 F.3d 1314, 2017 WL 2960724, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12419

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 12, 2017 | Docket: 6088730

Cited 11 times | Published

that the violation was a felony. See Fla. Stat. § 934.03 (2016). She forbade him from making future recordings

Kountze v. Kountze

996 So. 2d 246, 2008 WL 5191571

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2008 | Docket: 1692200

Cited 11 times | Published

Security of Communications Act (the Act). See § 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2002). Neely recorded the call from

Williams v. State

421 So. 2d 512

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 1982 | Docket: 1372125

Cited 11 times | Published

conversations the police acted in accordance with section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), and the United

Hoberman v. State

400 So. 2d 758

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 1981 | Docket: 1263203

Cited 11 times | Published

communications where there has been compliance with section 934.03(2)(c) and held: A wrongdoer who voluntarily

Guilder v. State

899 So. 2d 412, 2005 WL 714859

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2005 | Docket: 2514087

Cited 10 times | Published

intercept an oral communication in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1999). Contrary to Guilder's

Dept. of Agriculture v. Edwards

654 So. 2d 628, 1995 WL 258910

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1995 | Docket: 179141

Cited 10 times | Published

placed Edwards under arrest for violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes, which prohibits, among other

The Florida Bar v. McClure

575 So. 2d 176, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 128, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 94, 1991 WL 6537

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1991 | Docket: 1444124

Cited 10 times | Published

attorney and therefore acted lawfully under section 934.03(2)(c). State v. Williams, 443 So.2d 952 (Fla

State v. Welker

536 So. 2d 1017, 1988 WL 131578

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1988 | Docket: 1759573

Cited 10 times | Published

purposes of obtaining evidence of a criminal act, section 934.03(2)(c) authorizes a law enforcement officer

Morningstar v. State

428 So. 2d 220

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 1982 | Docket: 1374917

Cited 10 times | Published

Florida Constitution prohibit reliance upon Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979) as to the interception

Padgett v. State

404 So. 2d 151

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 1981 | Docket: 635791

Cited 10 times | Published

from the warrantless interception, pursuant to § 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes, of conversations between

State v. News-Press Pub. Co.

338 So. 2d 1313, 2 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1240

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 1976 | Docket: 1511834

Cited 10 times | Published

the purpose of committing any criminal act." Section 934.03(2)(d). Federal court decisions have interpreted

Brandin v. State

669 So. 2d 280, 1996 WL 44163

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1996 | Docket: 530696

Cited 9 times | Published

violation of Chapter 934, Florida Statutes (1993). Section 934.03 provides in part that any person who intercepts

Sarno v. State

424 So. 2d 829

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1982 | Docket: 1297033

Cited 9 times | Published

party[2] is admissible even without a court order.[3] § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1977); Miller v. State, 411

State v. Tsavaris

382 So. 2d 56

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1980 | Docket: 1255198

Cited 9 times | Published

violation of this chapter. [Emphasis added] Section 934.03(1)(c) makes it a crime to willfully disclose

Morningstar v. State

405 So. 2d 778

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1981 | Docket: 1348091

Cited 8 times | Published

communications, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), which authorizes

State v. Shaktman

389 So. 2d 1045

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1980 | Docket: 1282018

Cited 8 times | Published

are relevant only in the absence of consent. Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (Supplement 1978),

Commerford v. State

728 So. 2d 796, 1999 WL 104444

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 1999 | Docket: 345021

Cited 7 times | Published

record a conversation with him. We disagree. Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), permits a warrantless

State v. Osvath

661 So. 2d 1252, 1995 WL 621753

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 1995 | Docket: 1526497

Cited 7 times | Published

because it was made by the police in violation of Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), a ground which

LaPorte v. State

512 So. 2d 984, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2007

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1987 | Docket: 473201

Cited 7 times | Published

interception of oral communications in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1983), and one misdemeanor

Inciarrano v. State

447 So. 2d 386

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 1984 | Docket: 1311840

Cited 7 times | Published

circumstances. The prohibition is contained in Section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). The question

Miller v. State

411 So. 2d 944

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 1982 | Docket: 1327011

Cited 7 times | Published

was inadmissible as evidence in Florida under Section 934.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), because both

Wilson v. State

403 So. 2d 982

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 1980 | Docket: 1251030

Cited 7 times | Published

not have been conducted by a private citizen. Section 934.03(2)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1979), provides:

O'Brien v. O'Brien

899 So. 2d 1133, 2005 WL 322367

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 2005 | Docket: 755420

Cited 6 times | Published

trial court properly concluded that pursuant to section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2003), certain communications

O'Brien v. O'Brien

899 So. 2d 1133, 2005 WL 322367

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 2005 | Docket: 755420

Cited 6 times | Published

trial court properly concluded that pursuant to section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2003), certain communications

Ruiz v. State

416 So. 2d 32

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1982 | Docket: 1224897

Cited 6 times | Published

entire transaction. This action was pursuant to section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides

Bouler v. State

389 So. 2d 1197

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1980 | Docket: 1683184

Cited 6 times | Published

an illegal interception as one party consented. § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1977); Shayne v. State, 384

Roberts v. Jardine

358 So. 2d 588

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 1978 | Docket: 1691021

Cited 6 times | Published

carries a criminal as well as a civil penalty. Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1977). Accordingly, the

Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea

129 So. 3d 1196, 42 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2122, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 452, 2014 WL 185217

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 2014 | Docket: 60237332

Cited 5 times | Published

and disclosure of electronic communications, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2006), in support of his

Nunn v. State

121 So. 3d 566, 2013 WL 2494161, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9288, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1297

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 2013 | Docket: 60234448

Cited 5 times | Published

consent to the recording of the conversation. § 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2010). Although the act provides

Horning-Keating v. Employers Ins. of Wausau

969 So. 2d 412, 2007 WL 3118841

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2007 | Docket: 1726006

Cited 5 times | Published

should be entered in its favor on Keating's section 934.03 claim because Spangler had no duty to prevent

State v. Stout

693 So. 2d 657, 1997 WL 227441

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 1997 | Docket: 1524492

Cited 5 times | Published

evidence during the motion to suppress hearing. Section 934.03 (2)(c), Florida Statutes (1993) provides: It

Madsen v. State

502 So. 2d 948, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 335

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 21, 1987 | Docket: 2514082

Cited 5 times | Published

conversation has given prior consent to the interception. § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1977). Appellant's contention

Department of Prof. Reg. v. Rentfast

467 So. 2d 486

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 1985 | Docket: 1274806

Cited 5 times | Published

interception of an oral communication pursuant to section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1983). Johnson argues the

Burgess v. Burgess

447 So. 2d 220

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 1984 | Docket: 109188

Cited 5 times | Published

by the clear and comprehensive language of section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (1979), which states in

Copeland v. State

435 So. 2d 842

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1983 | Docket: 1328498

Cited 5 times | Published

from the electronic surveillance was saved by section 934.03(2)(c) due to Townsend's voluntary consent to

Chiarenza v. State

406 So. 2d 66

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 1981 | Docket: 449811

Cited 5 times | Published

for the purpose of committing any criminal act. § 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1973). Tollett v. State, supra

France v. France

90 So. 3d 860, 2012 WL 1956352, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8799

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2012 | Docket: 60309668

Cited 4 times | Published

Florida’s Security of Communications Act. See § 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2009). Ms. France moved to dismiss

Springle v. State

613 So. 2d 65

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 1993 | Docket: 1511318

Cited 4 times | Published

what transpired sub judice was in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1991), and consequently

Reliance Ins. Co. v. Lazzara Oil Co.

601 So. 2d 1241, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6527, 1992 WL 135448

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1992 | Docket: 1710940

Cited 4 times | Published

in alleged violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1983). Section 934.03 provides, in pertinent

Welker v. State

504 So. 2d 802, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 918

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 1987 | Docket: 1511213

Cited 4 times | Published

thereby will not be misused. See also, Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(c). The court then held that the "consent"

Morris v. State

456 So. 2d 471

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1984 | Docket: 1732028

Cited 4 times | Published

warrantless interceptions were made pursuant to section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides:

State v. Williams

443 So. 2d 952

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1983 | Docket: 1458679

Cited 4 times | Published

extended to apply to the present situation. Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), provides: It

State v. Leonard

376 So. 2d 427

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 1979 | Docket: 1411042

Cited 4 times | Published

unavailable to testify with respect to his consent. Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977)[1] allows a

West v. STATE, DEPT. OF CRIM. LAW ENFORCEMENT

371 So. 2d 107

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1978 | Docket: 1786266

Cited 4 times | Published

Department and, more particularly, in violation of section 934.03, F.S. * * * * * * "That during the period of

Nova v. State

346 So. 2d 1214

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 17, 1977 | Docket: 17908

Cited 4 times | Published

testimony was admitted. Appellant contends that Section 934.03(2)(d) Florida Statutes (1975), which prohibits

Hentz v. State

62 So. 3d 1184, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8418, 2011 WL 2200628

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 8, 2011 | Docket: 692401

Cited 3 times | Published

review. Id. Both Hentz and the State agree that section 934.03, Florida Statutes, is determinative in the

Cohen Brothers, LLC. v. Me Corp., Sa

872 So. 2d 321, 2004 WL 784885

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2004 | Docket: 1357001

Cited 3 times | Published

an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 the speaker must have an actual subjective

Accept. Ins. Co. v. Bates, Dunning & Assoc., Inc.

858 So. 2d 1068, 2003 WL 21919584

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2003 | Docket: 1513524

Cited 3 times | Published

complaint asserted claims for violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes,[1] and common law invasion

State v. Russell

814 So. 2d 483, 2002 WL 506979

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2002 | Docket: 1368706

Cited 3 times | Published

would be nothing amiss about it pursuant to section 934.03(2)(c), because it was taped with the consent

State v. Hershkowitz

714 So. 2d 545, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1522

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 1998 | Docket: 198476

Cited 3 times | Published

Insurance departmentall in full compliance with section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995).[1] The trial

Wood v. State

654 So. 2d 218, 1995 WL 232512

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1995 | Docket: 1303525

Cited 3 times | Published

intercepting a telephone conversation in violation of section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). One taping

Jackson v. State

636 So. 2d 1372, 1994 WL 180402

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1994 | Docket: 1361718

Cited 3 times | Published

88-184, § 2, at 1022 (codified as amended at § 934.03(2)(i)1., Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988)). The statutes

Holland v. State

528 So. 2d 36, 1988 WL 59426

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 1988 | Docket: 1717464

Cited 3 times | Published

third degree felony violation of the law" (see section 934.03, Florida Statutes, dealing with interception

Williams v. State

420 So. 2d 404

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 1982 | Docket: 1711395

Cited 3 times | Published

obtained in a manner otherwise permissible under Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979) only where that

Pittman v. State

397 So. 2d 1205

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 1981 | Docket: 1339097

Cited 3 times | Published

wore a "body bug") who testified at the trial. Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes, thus authorized the

State v. Napoli

373 So. 2d 933

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1979 | Docket: 1772592

Cited 3 times | Published

to justify an interception under Section 934.03(2)(c). Section 934.03(2)(c) provides: It is lawful under

Zuppardi v. State

367 So. 2d 601

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 1978 | Docket: 1330153

Cited 3 times | Published

first intercepted communication as required by Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1975). All motions

Randy W. Tundidor v. State of Florida

221 So. 3d 587, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 507, 2017 WL 1506854, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 925

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 2017 | Docket: 5813559

Cited 2 times | Published

McDade v. State, 154 So.3d 292, 297 (Fla. 2014). Section 934.03(2)(c) provides an exception to the general

Richard R. Mcdade v. State of Florida

154 So. 3d 292, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 752, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3681, 2014 WL 6977944

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 2014 | Docket: 2613861

Cited 2 times | Published

, 14 So.3d 228, 234 (Fla.2009)). Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2010), contains a general

Mead v. State

31 So. 3d 881, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3343, 2010 WL 934073

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2010 | Docket: 1150722

Cited 2 times | Published

"interception" of the phone communication lawful under section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2006). The state charged

Holt v. CHIEF JUDGE OF THIRTEENTH JUD. CIR.

920 So. 2d 814, 2006 WL 359962

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 2006 | Docket: 1730708

Cited 2 times | Published

intercepted oral communications in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1983)); Brandin v. State

Thompson v. State

731 So. 2d 819, 1999 WL 252387

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1999 | Docket: 1408938

Cited 2 times | Published

the consent of the victim as authorized by section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides:

Thompson v. State

731 So. 2d 819, 1999 WL 252387

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1999 | Docket: 1408938

Cited 2 times | Published

the consent of the victim as authorized by section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides:

State v. Sells

582 So. 2d 1244, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7028, 1991 WL 134055

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 1991 | Docket: 64660329

Cited 2 times | Published

intercept oral communications in violation of section 934.03(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). We reverse

State v. Hill

504 So. 2d 407

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 1987 | Docket: 453585

Cited 2 times | Published

interception of an oral communication under section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979). Hill further

Zacke v. State

418 So. 2d 1118

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 1982 | Docket: 1686018

Cited 2 times | Published

Sarmiento, 397 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1981), holding section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977)[2] unconstitutional

Hurst v. State

409 So. 2d 1059

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 1982 | Docket: 526206

Cited 2 times | Published

has given prior consent to the interception. Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). Except insofar

Armstrong v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

366 So. 2d 88

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1979 | Docket: 1227810

Cited 2 times | Published

disclose, or use, such communications * *" F.S. 934.03, Florida Statutes 1973, provides in material

Stalley v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.

997 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 2014 WL 349489, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12124

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2014 | Docket: 65997453

Cited 1 times | Published

attention on whether the exceptions listed in section 934.03(2), Fla. Stat. applied to the factual situation-

Brugmann v. State

117 So. 3d 39, 2013 WL 2494244, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9297

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 2013 | Docket: 60232659

Cited 1 times | Published

consent of all of the parties, in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2004). The trial court found

McDade v. State

114 So. 3d 465, 2013 WL 2451347, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8996

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 2013 | Docket: 60231945

Cited 1 times | Published

provisions of this chapter. (Emphasis added.) Section 934.03(1) generally prohibits the interception of

Cuomo v. State

98 So. 3d 1275, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18386, 2012 WL 5233474

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 2012 | Docket: 60312181

Cited 1 times | Published

disclosure of oral communications, prohibited by section 934.03, Florida Statutes. For the reasons expressed

Malone v. State

944 So. 2d 1256, 2007 WL 5794

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 2007 | Docket: 2582123

Cited 1 times | Published

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002); Commerford v. State

Jatar v. Lamaletto

758 So. 2d 1167, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5252, 2000 WL 525888

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 2000 | Docket: 64797555

Cited 1 times | Published

Inc. [collectively “defendants”], violated section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1989), making it unlawful

Adams v. State

436 So. 2d 1132

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 1983 | Docket: 1701244

Cited 1 times | Published

evidence, notwithstanding the provisions of section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).[2] He contends

Emily Mize English v. Port St. Lucie Police Department

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 2025 | Docket: 69525399

Published

expected the conversation to be private. Section 934.03(1) generally prohibits the interception of

QUALITY AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, DORSCH v. ELLIS, MCLEAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 2025 | Docket: 69514561

Published

Dorsch in Pinellas County alleging violations of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2019), which prohibits the

STRAUB, SEAMAN & ALLEN, PC, WAGGONER, ESQ. v. ELLIS, QUALITY AUTOMOTIVE, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 13, 2024 | Docket: 69369598

Published

existence, which he asserted were violations of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2021). Specifically, as

Michael L. Waite v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2024 | Docket: 69050030

Published

interception of “oral communication” in violation of section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2020), one count of

Maddie Joy Langlois v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2024 | Docket: 68896433

Published

write separately to address the application of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2020), where, as here, the

MICHAEL L. WAITE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2024 | Docket: 67718504

Published

email. The State alleged that Waite violated section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2020), by recording

DAVID W. RACE v. WILLIAM J. MITCHELL

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2023 | Docket: 66970046

Published

disclose, or use, such communications . . . .”); § 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2019) (allowing “a person to

STATE OF FLORIDA vs OSCAR TRINIDAD

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 28, 2022 | Docket: 66688130

Published

amended motion to suppress. The State relied on section 934.03(2)(k), Florida Statutes, arguing that the

SCOTT ALEXANDER JOHNSTONE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2022 | Docket: 65389447

Published

were insufficient to constitute stalking). Section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), prohibits the

Tracey M. Chance v. Ariel Cook

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 28, 2022 | Docket: 65382451

Published

recordings violated Florida’s privacy law, Fla. Stat. § 934.03. 3 Zabijaka also asked Chance’s attorney whether

RYAN D. GESTEN and ANDREA GESTEN v. AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2022 | Docket: 63359320

Published

4th DCA 2021), we specifically found that section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2020), which prohibits the

RYAN D. GESTEN and ANDREA GESTEN v. AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2022 | Docket: 63352044

Published

4th DCA 2021), we specifically found that section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2020), which prohibits the

SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 2021 | Docket: 60108417

Published

expectation” as required by the wiretap statute, section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), and section

STATE OF FLORIDA v. KIMBERLY D. FOSTER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2021 | Docket: 60073795

Published

Florida Statutes (2019), obtained in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2019), and subject to statutory

HEATHER SILVERSMITH v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2021 | Docket: 60041144

Published

reverse. The trial court erred in applying section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2020), which precludes interception

SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 2021 | Docket: 59882200

Published

communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing

Corey Smiley v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2019 | Docket: 16068377

Published

any wire, oral, or electronic communication.” § 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2018). Unless all parties to the

Skydive Space Center, Inc. v. Pohjolainen

275 So. 3d 825

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2019 | Docket: 64719894

Published

ORFINGER, LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. See § 934.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2015) (forbidding the intentional

Skydive Space Center, Inc. v. Pohjolainen

275 So. 3d 825

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2019 | Docket: 64719893

Published

ORFINGER, LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. See § 934.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2015) (forbidding the intentional

Smith v. State

261 So. 3d 714

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2018 | Docket: 64700835

Published

State , 154 So.3d 292, 296-97 (Fla. 2014). Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2016), generally prohibits

Smith v. State

261 So. 3d 714

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2018 | Docket: 64700834

Published

State , 154 So.3d 292, 296-97 (Fla. 2014). Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2016), generally prohibits

State v. Garcia

252 So. 3d 783

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 2018 | Docket: 7511600

Published

competent, substantial evidence.”). Section 934.03, Florida Statutes prohibits the interception

Nece v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

292 F. Supp. 3d 1274

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2018 | Docket: 64317165

Published

amend the complaint to assert a claim under Section 934.03(1), which prohibits the intentional interception

Crosby v. State

242 So. 3d 1129

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2018 | Docket: 64678160

Published

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015). ORFINGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur

Ray Crosby v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 2018 | Docket: 6314180

Published

Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015). ORFINGER, WALLIS

State v. Caraballo

198 So. 3d 819, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3523, 2016 WL 886538

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2016 | Docket: 3044946

Published

an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 the speaker must have ■ an actual subjective

Belle v. State

177 So. 3d 285, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14453, 2015 WL 5709461

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2015 | Docket: 2863178

Published

any “oral ... communication.” § 934.03(l)(a). For purposes of section 934.03, an “oral communication” is

Kenneth Isaac Parkerson v. State of Florida

163 So. 3d 683, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6312, 2015 WL 1930312

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 2015 | Docket: 2679369

Published

351 So.2d 723 (Fla.1977), which upheld section 934.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1969), prohibiting

Perdue v. State

78 So. 3d 712, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1372, 2012 WL 310878

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2012 | Docket: 2515992

Published

the recording fell within the exception in section 934.03(2)(g)2, which the court broadly construed to

Dawson v. State

23 So. 3d 841, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19248, 2009 WL 4641720

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 2009 | Docket: 60282084

Published

introduction of the tape recordings.”); see also § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2006). Dawson’s second argument

Bryant v. Mostert

636 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57274, 2009 WL 1941466

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2009 | Docket: 2386893

Published

interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Furthermore

Brillinger v. City of Lake Worth

978 So. 2d 265, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5200, 2008 WL 942525

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 2008 | Docket: 64854408

Published

provided for 911 calls and responses thereto.” Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2000), of the Florida

Grontkowski v. State

978 So. 2d 202, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3902, 2008 WL 724212

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2008 | Docket: 64854383

Published

should have been suppressed as illegal under section 934.03, Florida Statutes. We agree with the trial

Atkins v. State

930 So. 2d 678, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3993, 2006 WL 708330

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 2006 | Docket: 64845186

Published

of this tape is the subject of this appeal. Section 934.03 makes intentional interception of telephone

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Aug 21, 2002 | Docket: 3256325

Published

interrelated, they will be answered together. Section 934.03, Florida Statutes, provides: "Except as otherwise

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Jan 11, 2002 | Docket: 3258059

Published

emergency telephone numbers as provided in section 934.03(2)(g), Florida Statutes, or has obtained a

Otero v. Otero

736 So. 2d 771, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9078, 1999 WL 454467

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 1999 | Docket: 64789234

Published

intentional interception of wire communication. See § 934.03(l)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. It also prohibits the intentional

State v. Sobel

743 So. 2d 38, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6897, 1999 WL 360180

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1999 | Docket: 64791640

Published

dissent. I would interpret the language in section 934.03(2)(c), which makes legal and usable in court

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Mar 7, 1997 | Docket: 3256218

Published

business calls made by personnel of the agency. Section 934.03(2)(g), Florida Statutes, has been amended since

State v. Edwards

645 So. 2d 588, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11450, 1994 WL 653464

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1994 | Docket: 64752258

Published

and dismissed a criminal charge brought under section 934.03(l)(a), Florida Statutes. Although the order

Barrett v. State

618 So. 2d 269, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3605, 1993 WL 90888

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 1993 | Docket: 64696232

Published

of the right of privacy and a violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1991). See Springle v. State

Nelson v. State

616 So. 2d 84, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3041, 1993 WL 74265

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1993 | Docket: 64695246

Published

privacy and a violation of Florida Statutes Section 934.03. We note that the Appellant was not in custody

Smith v. State

616 So. 2d 509, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2866, 1993 WL 74263

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1993 | Docket: 64695376

Published

of the right of privacy and a violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1991). Therefore, the contents

Payne v. State

562 So. 2d 372, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3555, 1990 WL 67306

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 1990 | Docket: 64650937

Published

has given prior consent to such interception. § 934.03(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). Merely listening on a

State v. Jones

562 So. 2d 740, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3115, 1990 WL 58281

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 1990 | Docket: 64651030

Published

communication. See § 934.01, Fla.Stat. (1989). Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1989), prohibits the intentional

State v. Ono

552 So. 2d 234, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2424, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5671, 1989 WL 119081

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 1989 | Docket: 64646329

Published

remand. State v. Welker, 536 So.2d 1017 (Fla.1988); § 934.03(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). REVERSED and REMANDED

Trombley v. State

541 So. 2d 798, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1027, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2236, 1989 WL 39572

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 1989 | Docket: 64641633

Published

State, 489 So.2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and section 934.03(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). As to the admissibility

Morales v. State

513 So. 2d 695, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2160, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12152

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 1987 | Docket: 64629933

Published

because he feared that his own criminal violation of § 934.03(l)(a) would be exposed. The basic difficulty with

Snowdon v. Sambo's

491 So. 2d 1154, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1235, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8067

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 1986 | Docket: 64620795

Published

Cigna, 480 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). . Section 934.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1983), makes unlawful

Evans v. State

473 So. 2d 745, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1617, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1985 | Docket: 64613491

Published

determine his consent to the recordings. , Section 934.03(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1983), permits a warrantless

P.J. v. State

453 So. 2d 470, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14257

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 1984 | Docket: 64606106

Published

Statutes (1981). We conclude that it was not. Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides that

Kay v. State

449 So. 2d 369, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 1984 | Docket: 64604440

Published

Ed.2d 95 (1983), the supreme court, finding section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979) constitutional

Waters v. State

444 So. 2d 1135, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11718

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1984 | Docket: 64602599

Published

the jury’s request during its deliberations). Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), allows a law

Evans v. Coleman

444 So. 2d 33, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25150

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 1983 | Docket: 64602270

Published

carries a criminal as well as a civil penalty. Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1977). Accordingly, the

Powe v. State

443 So. 2d 154, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25099

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 1983 | Docket: 64601934

Published

Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, inasmuch as Section 934.-03(2)(c) purports to excuse any Chapter 934 authorization

Burgess v. Burgess

417 So. 2d 1173, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20889

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 1982 | Docket: 64591675

Published

criminal charges against Mr. Burgess pursuant to Section 934.03(l)(d), which makes such conduct a felony of

Turnbull v. State

386 So. 2d 42

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 1980 | Docket: 64577435

Published

v. Leonard, 376 So.2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); § 934.03(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979).

State v. Keen

384 So. 2d 284, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16486

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 1980 | Docket: 64576479

Published

oral communication of another in violation of Section 934.-03(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1978), and unlawfully

Shayne v. State

384 So. 2d 711, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16887

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 1980 | Docket: 64576565

Published

the “bugging” was entirely permissible under Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). Tollett v.

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Jan 15, 1980 | Docket: 3255321

Published

are found in s. 934.03(2)(c), (d), and (g). Section 934.03(2)(c) permits a law enforcement officer to

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Oct 29, 1979 | Docket: 3255944

Published

emergency telephone numbers. AS TO QUESTION 1: Section 934.03(2)(g), F. S., provides as follows: (g) It is

Roberts v. Jardine

366 So. 2d 124, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13932

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 1979 | Docket: 64567947

Published

168 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Thus, since Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1977), makes the interception

Campbell v. State

365 So. 2d 751, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17157

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 1978 | Docket: 64567731

Published

conversation intercepted by Officer Herron. Section 934.03(2)(c) permits a law enforcement officer or

Aalderink v. State

353 So. 2d 172, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16868

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 1977 | Docket: 64561869

Published

So.2d 490 (Fla.1973). We agree and reverse. Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1975), permits a warrantless