Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 934.08 (2025)

Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted 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

934.08 Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications.—

(1) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom may disclose such contents to:

(a) The Department of Legal Affairs for use in investigations or proceedings pursuant to s. 812.035, part II of chapter 501, chapter 542, or chapter 895, to any attorney authorized by law to investigate and institute any action on behalf of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, or to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer or person making or receiving the disclosure.

(b) Any state or federal law enforcement official, state or federal intelligence official, state or federal protective services official, federal immigration official, state or federal defense official, or state or federal security official to the extent that the contents or evidence includes foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, as defined in 50 U.S.C. s. 401a, or foreign intelligence information, as defined in this chapter, in order to assist the official who receives that information in performing his or her official duties. Any state or federal official who receives information under this subsection may use that information only as necessary in conducting official duties and is subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.

(2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom may use such contents to the extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of her or his official duties.

(3) Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, or by the laws of any other state or the United States, any information concerning a wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom, intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, may disclose the contents of that communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any criminal proceeding in any court of the state or of the United States; in any grand jury proceedings; in any proceeding pursuant to s. 812.035, part II of chapter 501, chapter 542, or chapter 895; in any investigation or proceeding in connection with the Judicial Qualifications Commission; or in any other proceeding or investigation held under the authority of the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, if such testimony is otherwise admissible.

(4) No otherwise privileged wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this chapter shall lose its privileged character, provided that a communication otherwise lawfully intercepted pursuant to this chapter is not privileged when such communication is in furtherance of the commission of a crime.

(5) When an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications in the manner authorized herein, intercepts wire, oral, or electronic communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order of authorization or approval, the contents thereof and evidence derived therefrom may be disclosed or used as provided in subsections (1) and (2). Such contents and any evidence derived therefrom may be used under subsection (3) when authorized or approved by a judge of competent jurisdiction when such judge finds on subsequent application that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Such application shall be made as soon as practicable.

History.—s. 8, ch. 69-17; s. 2, ch. 72-294; s. 1, ch. 73-361; s. 6, ch. 88-184; s. 6, ch. 89-269; s. 1583, ch. 97-102; s. 6, ch. 2002-72.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1972–2003 · leading case: United States v. Lanza, 341 F. Supp. 405 (M.D. Fla. 1972).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Lanza, 341 F. Supp. 405 (M.D. Fla. 1972). · cites it 3× “Fla.Stat. § 934.08, F.S.A. provides in part: (3) Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this cliaxjter may…”

United States v. Harvey, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 2517 (5) with Fla.Stat. § 934.08(5). 10 . The Defendant has noted that the Department of Justice Manual (Defendant’s Exhibit No.”

Sarmiento v. State, 371 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). · cites it 2× “…or proceeding in connection with the judicial qualifications commission, if such testimony is otherwise admissible." § 934.08(3), Fla. Stat. (1977).”

The Florida Bar v. McClure, 575 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1991). · cites it 2× “1984), McClure argues that electronically intercepted evidence is inadmissible in such proceedings because its use is not affirmatively authorized by section 934.08, Florida Statutes (1981). We reject this argument.”

United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 2517 (4); Fla. Stat. § 934.08 (4) (1997). Following Title III, Florida requires authorization orders instruct monitors to minimize the interception of conversations not otherwise subject to interception under the statute.”

State v. Napoli, 373 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). · cites it 2× “Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of § 934.08(1) and (2) for investigations. The presence of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or…”

Palm Beach Newspapers v. Burk, 471 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). “24 (grand jury proceedings); Section 934.08 (information gained through wiretaps).”

Lomelo v. Schultz, 422 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). · cites it 2× “Section 934.08(3). The statute clearly creates a civil cause of action for improper disclosure of intercepted communications.”

State v. Belosh, 13 Fla. Supp. 2d 34 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985). · cites it 6× “F.S. 934.08(5) provides that “when an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire or oral communications in the manner authorized herein, intercepts wire or oral communications relating to offenses for which an order or authorization or approval…”

— 934.08(1) — 1 case

State v. Napoli, 373 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). “Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of § 934.08(1) and (2) for investigations. The presence of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or…”

— 934.08(3) — 4 cases

Sarmiento v. State, 371 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). “…or proceeding in connection with the judicial qualifications commission, if such testimony is otherwise admissible." § 934.08(3), Fla. Stat. (1977).”

United States v. Lanza, 341 F. Supp. 405 (M.D. Fla. 1972). “Fla.Stat. § 934.08, F.S.A. provides in part: (3) Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this cliaxjter may…”

Lomelo v. Schultz, 422 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “Section 934.08(3). The statute clearly creates a civil cause of action for improper disclosure of intercepted communications.”

— 934.08(5) — 2 cases

United States v. Harvey, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1983). “§ 2517 (5) with Fla.Stat. § 934.08(5). 10 . The Defendant has noted that the Department of Justice Manual (Defendant’s Exhibit No.”

State v. Belosh, 13 Fla. Supp. 2d 34 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985). “F.S. 934.08(5) provides that “when an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire or oral communications in the manner authorized herein, intercepts wire or oral communications relating to offenses for which an order or authorization or approval…”

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.