Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 934.06 (2025)
Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications; exception.
✓ 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
934.06 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Richard R. Mcdade v. State of Florida, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014).
Richard R. Mcdade v. State of Florida, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014). “The district court concluded that “[bjecause the statements in question were introduced to show why the boyfriend encouraged the victim to make the recordings,” the boyfriend’s statements did “not constitute hearsay and thus the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting…”
Randy W. Tundidor v. State of Florida, 221 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2017). “Recorded Conversation Next, Tundidor argues that the recording of his conversation with Shawn was inadmissible because it does not fall under the statutory exception for the use of secret recordings.”
State v. Walls, 356 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1978). “03, Florida Statutes, and that use of the electronic recording as evidence is prohibited by Section 934.06, Florida Statutes. Granting the motion to suppress, the trial judge expressly ruled Sections 934.”
State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981). “Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: 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…”
State v. Smith, 641 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1994). “[1] Thus, the district court concluded *851 that the tape recording and any evidence derived from it were inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991). [2] However, because the district court found that the tape recording did not aid the police in finding the…”
State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). “First, the court reasoned that the News-Press could not have been guilty of destroying evidence, because the tape recordings were illegal intercepts which were inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding under Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1973). The court further held that…”
In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 287 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1973). “F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A., provides as follows: "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…”
Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). “Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1999), prohibits the contents of an intercepted communication from being received in evidence in any trial "if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.”
McDade v. State, 114 So. 3d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “McDade moved to suppress the recordings under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2010). The trial court conducted an evi-dentiary hearing comparable to a standard suppression hearing.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent., 869 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 2015). “1989) (holding that Fla. Stat. § 934.06 (1985), which provided that “no evidence derived” from a wiretap “may be received in evidence in any trial .”
United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “Several other states have enacted legislation imposing civil and criminal penalties for the use of electronic tracking devices and expressly requiring exclusion of evidence produced by such a device unless obtained by the police acting pursuant to a warrant.”
State v. Keaton, 371 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979). “In such a case, section 934.02(4)(a) provides that the contents of the call are exempted from the exclusion of section 934.”
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.