Florida Statute 934.06 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 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 Casetext

Amendments to 934.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 934.06

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 934.06.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 934.06

Total Results: 20

STATE OF FLORIDA vs OSCAR TRINIDAD

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-10-28

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

STATE OF FLORIDA v. KIMBERLY D. FOSTER

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-07-21

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

Corey Smiley v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-08-16

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

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

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-03-28

Citation: 267 So. 3d 541

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

Smith v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-12-14

Citation: 261 So. 3d 714

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

Smith v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-12-14

Citation: 261 So. 3d 714

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

State v. Garcia

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-07-25

Citation: 252 So. 3d 783

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

Randy W. Tundidor v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-04-27

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

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

State v. Caraballo

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-03-09

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

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

Belle v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-09-30

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

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

Bath Fitter Franchising, Inc. v. Labelle

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-02-04

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

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

Richard R. Mcdade v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-12-11

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

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

Brugmann v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-06-12

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

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

McDade v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-06-07

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

Snippet: interpreted as creating an exception to section 934.06 for victims of child sexual abuse because “where

Perdue v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-02-02

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

Snippet: limited exception not applicable *715 here. See § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2009). Accordingly, as the trial court

Tracey v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-09-07

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

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

Hentz v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-06-08

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

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

Pullam v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-02-22

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

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

State v. Pruitt

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2007-11-02

Citation: 967 So. 2d 1021, 2007 WL 3225376

Snippet: statute. See §§ 901.151(6) ("Stop and Frisk Law"); 934.06 (illegally intercepted wire or oral communications)

Atkins v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-03-22

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

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