Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 934.07 (2025)
Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.
✓ 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
934.07 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case: United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “Yet, the intercepted conversations do not support probable cause to believe the Defendants murdered their child, the only offense authorized by Fla. Stat. § 934.07 (1997). Nor do these conversations provide probable cause to believe the Defendants committed the other crimes…”
State v. Otte, 887 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2004). “Federal and State Wiretap Authorization The issue in this case is the validity of part of the Florida wiretap statute, § 934.07, Fla. Stat. (1999), under the federal wiretap statute, 18 U.”
United States v. Lanza, 341 F. Supp. 405 (M.D. Fla. 1972). “Fla.Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A. 2 The question is whether the *408 chief executive officer of the State is within the contemplation of the federal statute authorizing the “principal prosecuting attorney” of the State to make an initial approval.”
State v. Daniels, 389 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1980). “An assistant state attorney authorized a police investigative officer to apply for the order under section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975). The respondents argued on appeal that the wiretap order was invalid because under title 18, United States Code, section 2516 (2), only…”
In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 287 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1973). “1973, upon the motion of FRANK COBO, for an order to strike and suppress any and all evidence obtained in Dade County, Florida, through the use of Court authorized wiretaps, during the period July 26, 1972, to August 25, 1972, and from September 4, 1972, to September 18, 1972,…”
State v. Rivers, 660 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1995). “§ 934.07, Fla. Stat. (1991). Thus, the district court correctly identified the key issue as whether prostitution falls within the "dangerous to life" general category of the federal statute.”
United States v. Harvey, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1983). “FLORIDA STATE CHAPTER 934 INTERCEPT Under date of August 5,1980, the Honorable Tom Johnson, Circuit Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Criminal Division, Palm Beach County, Florida, issued an order for a wiretap under Fla.Stat. § 934.07, to intercept communications relating to…”
Hudson v. State, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). “09(3), Florida Statutes requires that the judge based upon the facts submitted by the applicant must find the existence of probable cause to believe that (1) an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offense enumerated in Section 934.07, Florida…”
United States v. Sylvester Anthony Domme, Jr. & Thomas Allen Domme, 753 F.2d 950 (11th Cir. 1985). “Florida’s wiretap statute contains the following provision: “The Governor, the Attorney General, or any State Attorney may authorize an application to a judge [for a wiretap order]____” Fla.Stat. Ann. § 934.07 (West Supp.1974-83).”
State v. McGillicuddy, 342 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). “" The enabling state legislation on the subject is Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975) which reads: "934.”
State v. Aurilio, 366 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). “Section 934.07 limits wiretap authorizations to investigations of: .”
Daniels v. State, 381 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “[13] F.S. 934.07 provides that "The Governor, the Attorney General or any State Attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with this chapter, an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or…”
— 934.07(1) — 1 case
State v. Sedlmayer, 375 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
— 934.07(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 23 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1987).
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.