Florida Statute 934.06 - 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. 934.06

934.06 Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications; exception.—Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The prohibition of use as evidence provided in this section does not apply in cases of prosecution for criminal interception in violation of the provisions of this chapter.

History.—s. 6, ch. 69-17; s. 4, ch. 89-269.

F.S. 934.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.06 on CourtListener

Amendments to 934.06

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 934.06

Total Results: 65

Ibar v. State

938 So. 2d 451, 2006 WL 560586

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

Cited 76 times | Published

and jewelry and about Fisher's new boyfriend. Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1999), prohibits the contents

Odom v. State

403 So. 2d 936

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

Cited 61 times | Published

evidence as far as the statute is concerned. See § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (1975). We find, however, that the

State v. Smith

641 So. 2d 849, 1994 WL 261441

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

Cited 39 times | Published

evidence derived from it were inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991).[2] However, because

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

interception of these oral communications and section 934.06 requires that these proscribed interceptions

State v. Tsavaris

394 So. 2d 418

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

Cited 30 times | Published

State v. Walls, 356 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1978). Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: Whenever

State v. Keaton

371 So. 2d 86

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 10, 1979 | Docket: 1786008

Cited 29 times | Published

and other proceedings designated by statute. § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (1977). The only apparent situation

In Re Grand Jury Investigation

287 So. 2d 43

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 1973 | Docket: 1170844

Cited 21 times | Published

relating to Security of Communications. F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A., provides as follows: "Whenever any wire

State v. Nova

361 So. 2d 411

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 1978 | Docket: 1288524

Cited 18 times | Published

District Court is wrong and should be reversed. Section 934.06 provides: Prohibition of use as evidence of

Markham v. Markham

272 So. 2d 813

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 1973 | Docket: 1644033

Cited 18 times | Published

2518, of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1968, and Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The trial court denied

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

1978). In addition to the felony sanctions, section 934.06 expressly provides that no part of the contents

Horn v. State

298 So. 2d 194

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

Cited 14 times | Published

contents of such communication into evidence. Florida Statute 934.06, F.S.A., provides as follows: "Whenever

State v. Walls

356 So. 2d 294

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

Cited 12 times | Published

electronic recording as evidence is prohibited by Section 934.06, Florida Statutes. Granting the motion to suppress

Stevenson v. State

667 So. 2d 410, 1996 WL 12615

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1996 | Docket: 149396

Cited 11 times | Published

oral communications as evidence, contained in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1993), is also not applicable

Stevenson v. State

667 So. 2d 410, 1996 WL 12615

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1996 | Docket: 149396

Cited 11 times | Published

oral communications as evidence, contained in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1993), is also not applicable

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

of illegally obtained evidence set forth in section 934.06. The investigator who conducted the interception

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

inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding under Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1973). The court further

State v. Garcia

547 So. 2d 628, 1989 WL 83143

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 1989 | Docket: 416478

Cited 9 times | Published

information would be in violation of this chapter. § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (1985). We concur with the opinion

State v. Tsavaris

382 So. 2d 56

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

Cited 9 times | Published

The only possible statutory prohibition is Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides in

Pullam v. State

55 So. 3d 674, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2215, 2011 WL 589928

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2011 | Docket: 2525847

Cited 8 times | Published

Statutes (2009), and a $20 court cost under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2009). Section 938.04(1)

Horning-Keating v. State

777 So. 2d 438, 2001 WL 108754

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2001 | Docket: 1513963

Cited 7 times | Published

conversation which has been obtained in violation of section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1997). According to unsworn

Inciarrano v. State

447 So. 2d 386

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

Cited 7 times | Published

as a legislatively imposed exclusionary rule. § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (1981). The right of privacy itself

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

exclusionary provisions of the Act are found in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2003), which provides that

United States v. Aisenberg

247 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2496, 2003 WL 403071

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2003 | Docket: 2517956

Cited 6 times | Published

the Florida Supreme Court reasoned FLA. STAT. § 934.06 provides a statutorily created exclusionary remedy;

Burgess v. Burgess

447 So. 2d 220

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

Cited 5 times | Published

inadmissible in evidence in all judicial proceedings. § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (1979). Although there is no remedy

Jenkins v. State

924 So. 2d 20, 2006 WL 167672

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2006 | Docket: 1735947

Cited 4 times | Published

violation of statutory requirements. For example, section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2005), provides that the

Springle v. State

613 So. 2d 65

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

Cited 4 times | Published

evidence derived therefrom is inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991). We conclude by stressing

Davis v. State

529 So. 2d 732, 1988 WL 65140

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 31, 1988 | Docket: 432462

Cited 4 times | Published

illegally obtained wiretap is further mandated by section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985): *735 Whenever any

Nova v. State

346 So. 2d 1214

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

Cited 4 times | Published

interception" controls and that pursuant to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), no part of the contents

Taylor v. State

292 So. 2d 375

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1974 | Docket: 1511706

Cited 4 times | Published

the evidence would have been prohibited by Section 934.06 which provides as follows: "Whenever any wire

Tracey v. State

69 So. 3d 992, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14054, 2011 WL 3903075

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 2011 | Docket: 2355513

Cited 3 times | Published

using any "evidence derived" from the violation. § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2009). Under federal law, suppression

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

(4).[[2]] § 934.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2008).[3] Section 934.06 states that no part of an intercepted communication

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

derived from the duplicate display pager under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991), when it was considering

William E. Campbell and Flora D. Campbell v. State of Florida Department of Transportation

267 So. 3d 541

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2019 | Docket: 14819612

Cited 2 times | Published

recording and transcript were inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes. The trial court found

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

the use of secret recordings. We disagree. Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, provides that secret recordings

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

the recordings under the exclusionary rule of section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2010). The district court

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

determined that they were inadmissible under section 934.06; excluded their use both as substantive evidence

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

McDade moved to suppress the recordings under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2010). The trial court conducted

Emily Mize English v. Port St. Lucie Police Department

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

Published

derivative evidence are inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2023), we reverse and remand

STATE OF FLORIDA vs OSCAR TRINIDAD

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

Published

7 Statutes (2021), and section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2021). 1 However, McDade

STATE OF FLORIDA v. KIMBERLY D. FOSTER

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

Published

and subject to statutory suppression under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2019). The State countered

Corey Smiley v. State of Florida

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

Published

as evidence in any trial or legal proceeding. § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2018). When a communication has been

Smith v. State

261 So. 3d 714

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

Published

proceeding, including a criminal trial. See id. § 934.06. Here, Mother recorded her conversation with Smith

Smith v. State

261 So. 3d 714

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

Published

proceeding, including a criminal trial. See id. § 934.06. Here, Mother recorded her conversation with Smith

State v. Garcia

252 So. 3d 783

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

Published

against surreptitious recordings contained in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2016). He argued that the

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

inadmissible because the recording violated section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2013), which prohibits the

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

motion to exclude the iPhone recording under section 934.06, *286 Florida Statutes (2012)

Bath Fitter Franchising, Inc. v. Labelle

156 So. 3d 588, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1401, 2015 WL 446743

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 2015 | Docket: 2631115

Published

limited exceptions inapplicable to this record). § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2014). Affirmed as to both the

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

limited exception not applicable *715 here. See § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2009). Accordingly, as 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

section 934.03. It therefore was inadmissible. Section 934.06 provides: Whenever any wire or oral communication

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

violate the statutory exclusionary rule found in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1997). Chapter 934 prohibits

State v. Williamson

701 So. 2d 1243, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13607, 1997 WL 749248

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 1997 | Docket: 64777021

Published

State has appealed the suppression; we reverse. Section 934.06 makes inadmissible only “the contents of such

Miller v. State

619 So. 2d 9, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4668, 1993 WL 130968

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 1993 | Docket: 64696516

Published

and reverse the trial court’s contempt order. Section 934.06 prohibits the use of any information obtained

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

result of that recording, are inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991). As to appellant’s

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

evidence derived therefrom are inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991). Appellant has not

Sutton v. State

556 So. 2d 1211, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 905, 1990 WL 12747

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 1990 | Docket: 64648166

Published

of evidence which is statutorily required by section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985). Garcia. Thus, the

State v. Lockman

525 So. 2d 1001, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1277, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2175, 1988 WL 51637

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 1988 | Docket: 64635015

Published

at trial the wrongfully intercepted tapes. Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985) says: We grant the

State v. Lockman

522 So. 2d 482, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 699, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1040, 1988 WL 22177

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1988 | Docket: 64633671

Published

under the authority of section 934.09(9)(a) and section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985) suppressed the contents

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

recognize as reasonable — the exclusionary rule of Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, does not apply. . A pathetic

Smith v. State

407 So. 2d 399, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22116

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 1981 | Docket: 64586810

Published

Article I, § 12 of the Florida Constitution and § 934.06, Florida Statutes, this case does not involve

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: May 15, 1981 | Docket: 3258026

Published

communications law applicable to your question. Section 934.06, F.S. 1979, provides that no part of the contents

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

calls should have been suppressed pursuant to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1977) because they were

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

HENRY CLAY, Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . Section 934.06 prohibits the reception at trial of any evidence

In re Spring Term (1977), Pinellas County Grand Jury

357 So. 2d 770, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15444

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1978 | Docket: 64563993

Published

which considered the Florida wiretap statute. Section 934.06 specifically states that evidence obtained

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Mar 1, 1974 | Docket: 3257882

Published

934, see ss. 934.03, 934.04, and 934.10, F.S. Section 934.06, F.S., provides: "Prohibition of use as evidence

In re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Evidence Obtained by Court Authorized Wiretaps

276 So. 2d 234, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6915

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 6, 1973 | Docket: 64531719

Published

§ 2515 (the counterpart of our statute, F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A.), as a defense to the contempt charges