Florida Statute 934.07 - 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. 934.07

934.07 Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.—

(1) The Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or any state attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with ss. 934.03-934.09 an order authorizing or approving the interception of, wire, oral, or electronic communications by:

(a) The Department of Law Enforcement or any law enforcement agency as defined in s. 934.02 having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, arson, gambling, robbery, burglary, theft, dealing in stolen property, criminal usury, bribery, or extortion; any felony violation of ss. 790.161-790.166, inclusive; any violation of s. 787.06; any violation of chapter 893; any violation of the provisions of the Florida Anti-Fencing Act; any violation of chapter 895; any violation of chapter 896; any violation of chapter 815; any violation of chapter 847; any violation of s. 827.071; any violation of s. 944.40; or any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any violation of the laws of this state relating to the crimes specifically enumerated in this paragraph.

(b) The Department of Law Enforcement, together with other assisting personnel as authorized and requested by the department under s. 934.09(5), for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of any offense that may be an act of terrorism or in furtherance of an act of terrorism or evidence of any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any such violation.

(2)(a) If, during the course of an interception of communications by a law enforcement agency as authorized under paragraph (1)(a), the law enforcement agency finds that the intercepted communications may provide or have provided evidence of the commission of any offense that may be an act of terrorism or in furtherance of an act of terrorism, or evidence of any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any such violation, the law enforcement agency shall promptly notify the Department of Law Enforcement and apprise the department of the contents of the intercepted communications. The agency notifying the department may continue its previously authorized interception with appropriate minimization, as applicable, and may otherwise assist the department as provided in this section.

(b) Upon its receipt of information of the contents of an intercepted communications from a law enforcement agency, the Department of Law Enforcement shall promptly review the information to determine whether the information relates to an actual or anticipated act of terrorism as defined in this section. If, after reviewing the contents of the intercepted communications, there is probable cause that the contents of the intercepted communications meet the criteria of paragraph (1)(b), the Department of Law Enforcement may make application for the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications consistent with paragraph (1)(b). The department may make an independent new application for interception based on the contents of the intercepted communications. Alternatively, the department may request the law enforcement agency that provided the information to join with the department in seeking an amendment of the original interception order, or may seek additional authority to continue intercepting communications under the direction of the department. In carrying out its duties under this section, the department may use the provisions for an emergency interception provided in s. 934.09(7) if applicable under statutory criteria.

(3) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:

(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or

2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and

(b) Is intended to:

1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;

2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.

History.—s. 7, ch. 69-17; ss. 11, 20, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 42, ch. 73-334; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 15, ch. 77-342; s. 33, ch. 79-8; s. 5, ch. 88-184; s. 5, ch. 89-269; s. 14, ch. 91-33; s. 10, ch. 2000-369; s. 1, ch. 2001-359; s. 3, ch. 2002-72; s. 10, ch. 2012-97; s. 115, ch. 2019-167.

F.S. 934.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.07 on CourtListener

Amendments to 934.07

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 934.07

Total Results: 42

State v. Sarmiento

397 So. 2d 643

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

Cited 60 times | Published

satisfied either by obtaining a warrant (under Section 934.07), or by assuring that one of the parties to

United States v. Lanza

341 F. Supp. 405, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14400

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 1972 | Docket: 1618129

Cited 43 times | Published

initial applications for monitoring. Fla.Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A.[2] The question is whether the *408 chief

United States v. Sylvester Anthony Domme, Jr. And Thomas Allen Domme

753 F.2d 950, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28158

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 21, 1985 | Docket: 598791

Cited 36 times | Published

judge [for a wiretap order]____” Fla.Stat. Ann. § 934.07 (West Supp.1974-83). Appellants argue that despite

United States v. Harvey

560 F. Supp. 1040, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19258

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 1983 | Docket: 965461

Cited 31 times | Published

issued an order for a wiretap under Fla.Stat. § 934.07, to intercept communications relating to violations

Rodriguez v. State

297 So. 2d 15

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1974 | Docket: 1510434

Cited 28 times | Published

is about to commit an offense enumerated *17 in § 934.07 (which includes the offense here in question);

In Re Grand Jury Investigation

287 So. 2d 43

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

Cited 21 times | Published

to crimes other than those enumerated in F.S. § 934.07, F.S.A. The First District Court of Appeal phrased

United States v. Van Horn

789 F.2d 1492, 54 U.S.L.W. 2633

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 23, 1986 | Docket: 66216137

Cited 15 times | Published

“narcotics or other dangerous drugs.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.07. According to appellants the state omitted “marijuana”

State v. Jackson

650 So. 2d 24, 1995 WL 48439

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1995 | Docket: 1703051

Cited 12 times | Published

or is about to commit an offense listed in section 934.07, probable cause for belief that communications

State v. Scott

385 So. 2d 1044

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

Cited 12 times | Published

is clear that no warrant (as authorized by Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1977)) was required for

Hudson v. State

368 So. 2d 899

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 1979 | Docket: 1389408

Cited 11 times | Published

is about to commit an offense enumerated in Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975);[1] (2) particular

State v. Daniels

389 So. 2d 631

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1980 | Docket: 1282007

Cited 10 times | Published

investigative officer to apply for the order under section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975). The respondents argued

State v. McGillicuddy

342 So. 2d 567

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1977 | Docket: 1521257

Cited 10 times | Published

enabling state legislation on the subject is Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975) which reads: "934

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

public meeting or any electronic communication. Section 934.07 provides that a state attorney may authorize

Sarno v. State

424 So. 2d 829

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

Cited 9 times | Published

of cigarettes that "[t]he load's not hot." Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1977), enumerates the offenses

Bagley v. State

397 So. 2d 1036

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1981 | Docket: 1357215

Cited 8 times | Published

by the state attorney which is required by section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1979), states that he has

State v. Rivers

660 So. 2d 1360, 1995 WL 392855

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 1995 | Docket: 1657709

Cited 7 times | Published

section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1991), part of which the

State v. Otte

887 So. 2d 1186, 2004 WL 2251849

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 2004 | Docket: 466590

Cited 6 times | Published

in which the district court declared invalid section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1999), to the extent 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

child, the only offense authorized by FLA. STAT. § 934.07 (1997). Nor do these conversations provide probable

Daniels v. State

381 So. 2d 707

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 1979 | Docket: 2486869

Cited 6 times | Published

authorize an application for a wiretap.[13] F.S. 934.07 provides that "The Governor, the Attorney General

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

obtain an order of authorization pursuant to section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1993) prior to the interception

Smith v. State

438 So. 2d 10

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 1983 | Docket: 1731774

Cited 5 times | Published

of the orders by persons not authorized by section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), and federal statutes;

Copeland v. State

435 So. 2d 842

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

Cited 5 times | Published

these four provisions were not complied with. Section 934.07 provides: 934.07 Authorization for Interception

State v. Birs

394 So. 2d 1054

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1981 | Docket: 1692272

Cited 5 times | Published

Section 2516(2)), when read in the context of Section 934.07 Florida Statutes (1975), refers to the appropriate

State v. Aurilio

366 So. 2d 71

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1978 | Docket: 1228428

Cited 5 times | Published

those provided for under federal and state law. Section 934.07 limits wiretap authorizations to investigations

State v. Sedlmayer

375 So. 2d 887

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1979 | Docket: 1352653

Cited 4 times | Published

We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. § 934.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1977). For the reasons which follow

Eagan v. DeManio

294 So. 2d 639

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 15, 1974 | Docket: 1736385

Cited 4 times | Published

or oral communications pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A., which reads as follows: "Authorization

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

relate to any of the offenses specified in section 934.07,[2] which permits judicial authorization of

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

case. The record supports this concession. Section 934.07 strictly defines a limited category of individuals

State v. McManus

404 So. 2d 757

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 2, 1981 | Docket: 1783301

Cited 2 times | Published

proscribed by 18 U.S.C. Section 2516(2) or Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975). The second point

Amerson v. State

388 So. 2d 1387, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17801

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 1980 | Docket: 64578378

Cited 1 times | Published

commit one of the offenses enumerated in Florida Statute 934.07, to wit: the possession, delivery and sale

State v. Alphonse

315 So. 2d 506, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14275

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 18, 1975 | Docket: 64548009

Cited 1 times | Published

the commission of an offense enumerated in section 934.07, F.S. It follows therefore that the evidence

STATE OF FLORIDA vs YAHAIRA MOJICA PHIPPS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2022 | Docket: 65654687

Published

in relevant part, the Statewide Prosecutor. § 934.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2021). Notably absent from this

STATE OF FLORIDA v. WILLIAM GRAHAM MARCELLUS HAYES, II

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 2020 | Docket: 17457727

Published

surveillance for prostitution- related offenses. See § 934.07, Fla. Stat. (2019); State v. Rivers, 660 So. 2d

State v. Fratello

835 So. 2d 312, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19249, 2002 WL 31875023

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2002 | Docket: 64820063

Published

Florida Legislature enacted a wiretap statute, section 934.07 of the Florida Statutes (1999)3, which authorizes

State v. Rivers

643 So. 2d 3, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8009, 1994 WL 419603

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1994 | Docket: 64751210

Published

relating to the interception of communications. Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1991) states in relevant

United States v. Brown

862 F.2d 1482

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 11, 1989 | Docket: 66240659

Published

Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and more particularly F.S. § 934.07, F.S.A., authorizing interception of wire or oral

Parker v. State

444 So. 2d 1055, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11437

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 1984 | Docket: 64602567

Published

sign authorizations for wiretap applications. See § 934.07, Fla.Stat. It authorized Police Officer Miles

Vinales v. State

374 So. 2d 570, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15702

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 1979 | Docket: 64571680

Published

officers conducting the investigation. See Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1977). The officers sought

Mitchell v. State

381 So. 2d 1066, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16348

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1979 | Docket: 64575216

Published

about to commit a particular offense enumerated in § 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), or probable cause for

Ago

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

Published

first receive authorization under s. 934.07, F.S.: "934.07 Authorization for interception of wire or oral

State v. Berjah

266 So. 2d 696, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6356

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 1972 | Docket: 64527642

Published

an assistant state attorney of Dade County. See § 934.07 et seq., Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The period allowed

State v. Angel

261 So. 2d 198, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6849

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 1972 | Docket: 64525565

Published

not shown on the face of such authorization).” § 934.07, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., reads as follows: “934.07 Authorization