Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 934.09 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 934.09 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 934.09

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 934
SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS; SURVEILLANCE
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 934.09
934.09 Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.
(1) Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication under ss. 934.03-934.09 shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall state the applicant’s authority to make such application. Each application shall include the following information:
(a) The identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application and the officer authorizing the application.
(b) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his or her belief that an order should be issued, including:
1. Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
2. Except as provided in subsection (11), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which, or the place where, the communications are to be intercepted.
3. A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted.
4. The identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted.
(c) A full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.
(d) A statement of the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained and, if the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been first obtained, a particular description of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter.
(e) A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any judge for authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire, oral, or electronic communications involving any of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken by the judge on each such application.
(f) When the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain such results.
(2) The judge may require the applicant to furnish additional testimony or documentary evidence in support of the application.
(3) Upon such application, the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing or approving interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting, and outside such jurisdiction but within the State of Florida in the case of a mobile interception device authorized by the judge within such jurisdiction, if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that:
(a) There is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense as provided in s. 934.07.
(b) There is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception.
(c) Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.
(d) Except as provided in subsection (11), there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person.
(4) Each order authorizing or approving the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication shall specify:
(a) The identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted.
(b) The nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place where, authority to intercept is granted.
(c) A particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates.
(d) The identity of the agency authorized to intercept the communications and of the person authorizing the application.
(e) The period of time during which such interception is authorized, including a statement as to whether or not the interception shall automatically terminate when the described communication has been first obtained.

An order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall, upon the request of the applicant, direct that a provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person shall furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that such service provider, landlord, custodian, or person is according the person whose communications are to be intercepted. The obligation of a provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service under such an order may include, but is not limited to, conducting an in-progress trace during an interception, or providing other assistance to support the investigation as may be specified in the order. Any provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person furnishing such facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the applicant for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such facilities or assistance.

(5) No order entered under this section may authorize or approve the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization or in any event longer than 30 days. Such 30-day period begins on the day on which the agent or officer of the law enforcement agency first begins to conduct an interception under the order or 10 days after the order is entered, whichever occurs earlier. Extensions of an order may be granted but only upon application for an extension made in accordance with subsection (1) and upon the court making the findings required by subsection (3). The period of extension shall be no longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was granted and in no event for longer than 30 days. Every order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under ss. 934.03-934.09, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective or in any event in 30 days. If the intercepted communication is in code or foreign language and an expert in that foreign language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception. An interception under ss. 934.03-934.09 may be conducted in whole or in part by government personnel or by an individual operating under a contract with the government, acting under the supervision of an agent or officer of the law enforcement agency authorized to conduct the interception.
(6) Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to ss. 934.03-934.09, the order may require reports to be made to the judge who issued the order showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for continued interception. Such reports shall be made at such intervals as the judge may require.
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer specially designated by the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney acting under this chapter, who reasonably determines that:
(a) An emergency exists that:
1. Involves immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person, the danger of escape of a prisoner, or conspiratorial activities threatening the security interest of the nation or state; and
2. Requires that a wire, oral, or electronic communication be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained; and
(b) There are grounds upon which an order could be entered under this chapter to authorize such interception

may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within 48 hours after the interception has occurred or begins to occur. In the absence of an order, such interception shall immediately terminate when the communication sought is obtained or when the application for the order is denied, whichever is earlier. If such application for approval is denied, or in any other case in which the interception is terminated without an order having been issued, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of s. 934.03(4), and an inventory shall be served as provided for in paragraph (8)(e) on the person named in the application.

(8)(a) The contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by any means authorized by ss. 934.03-934.09 shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. The recording of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication under this subsection shall be kept in such a way as will protect the recording from editing or other alterations. Immediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof, such recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his or her directions. Custody of the recordings shall be wherever the judge orders. They shall not be destroyed except upon an order of the issuing or denying judge, or that judge’s successor in office, and in any event shall be kept for 10 years. Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of s. 934.08(1) and (2) for investigations.
(b) 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 disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom under s. 934.08(3), as required by federal law.
(c) Applications made and orders granted under ss. 934.03-934.09 shall be sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders shall be wherever the judge directs. As required by federal law, such applications and orders shall be disclosed only upon a showing of good cause before a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall not be destroyed except on order of the issuing or denying judge, or that judge’s successor in office, and in any event shall be kept for 10 years.
(d) Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punished as contempt of the issuing or denying judge.
(e) Within a reasonable time but not later than 90 days after the termination of the period of an order or extensions thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his or her discretion to be in the interest of justice, an inventory which shall include notice of:
1. The fact of the entry of the order or the application.
2. The date of the entry and the period of authorized, approved, or disapproved interception, or the denial of the application.
3. The fact that during the period wire, oral, or electronic communications were or were not intercepted.

The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may make available to such person or the person’s counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communications, applications, and orders as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. On an ex parte showing of good cause to a judge of competent jurisdiction, the serving of the inventory required by this paragraph may be postponed.

(9) As required by federal law, the contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding unless each party, not less than 10 days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the court order and accompanying application under which the interception was authorized or approved. This 10-day period may be waived by the judge if he or she finds that it was not possible to furnish the party with the above information 10 days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving such information.
(10)(a) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that:
1. The communication was unlawfully intercepted;
2. The order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or
3. The interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval.

Such motion shall be made before the trial, hearing, or proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make such motion or the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion. If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09. The judge, upon the filing of such motion by the aggrieved person, may make available to the aggrieved person or his or her counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communication or evidence derived therefrom as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice.

(b) In addition to any other right to appeal, the state shall have the right to appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress made under paragraph (a) or the denial of an application for an order of approval if the attorney shall certify to the judge or other official granting such motion or denying such application that the appeal is not taken for purposes of delay. Such appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the date the order was entered and shall be diligently prosecuted.
(c) The remedies and sanctions described in ss. 934.03-934.10 with respect to the interception of electronic communications are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for violations of those sections involving such communications.
(11) The requirements of subparagraph (1)(b)2. and paragraph (3)(d) relating to the specification of the facilities from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted do not apply if:
(a) In the case of an application with respect to the interception of an oral communication:
1. The application is by an agent or officer of a law enforcement agency and is approved by the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney.
2. The application contains a full and complete statement as to why such specification is not practical and identifies the person committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted.
3. The judge finds that such specification is not practical.
(b) In the case of an application with respect to a wire or electronic communication:
1. The application is by an agent or officer of a law enforcement agency and is approved by the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney.
2. The application identifies the person believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant makes a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the person’s actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility or that the person whose communications are to be intercepted has removed, or is likely to remove, himself or herself to another judicial circuit within the state.
3. The judge finds that such showing has been adequately made.
4. The order authorizing or approving the interception is limited to interception only for such time as it is reasonable to presume that the person identified in the application is or was reasonably proximate to the instrument through which such communication will be or was transmitted.

Consistent with this paragraph, a judge of competent jurisdiction may authorize interception within this state, whether the interception is within or outside the court’s jurisdiction, if the application for the interception makes a showing that some activity or conspiracy believed to be related to, or in furtherance of, the criminal predicate for the requested interception has occurred or will likely occur, or the communication to be intercepted or expected to be intercepted is occurring or will likely occur, in whole or in part, within the jurisdiction of the court where the order is being sought.

(12) If an interception of a communication is to be carried out pursuant to subsection (11), such interception may not begin until the facilities from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted is ascertained by the person implementing the interception order. A provider of wire or electronic communications service that has received an order as provided under paragraph (11)(b) may petition the court to modify or quash the order on the ground that the interception cannot be performed in a timely or reasonable fashion. The court, upon notice to the state, shall decide such a petition expeditiously.
History.s. 9, ch. 69-17; s. 2, ch. 78-376; s. 7, ch. 88-184; s. 7, ch. 89-269; s. 1, ch. 94-101; s. 92, ch. 95-211; s. 1584, ch. 97-102; s. 11, ch. 2000-369; ss. 2, 3, ch. 2001-359; ss. 4, 5, ch. 2002-72.

F.S. 934.09 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.09 on Casetext

Amendments to 934.09


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 934.09
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 934.09.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

B. BRUGMANN, v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 934.09(10)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), additionally provides: Any aggrieved person in any trial . . . In furtherance of this objective, section 934.09(10)(a) provides that “[a]ny aggrieved person ... may . . .

BOLLEA, v. CLEM, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PIERRE,, 435 F. App'x 905 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 934.09(3). . . . Stat. § 934.09(3); McConnick, 719 So.2d at 1222. B. . . . Stat. § 934.09(l)(c). . . . Stat. § 934.09(3)(c). . . . Stat. § 934.09, with 18 U.S.C. § 2518. . . . .

HENTZ, v. STATE, 62 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 . . .

V. MINOTTY, M. D. v. A. BAUDO, M. D. M. D. M. D. V. M. D. v. A. M. D. M. D. M. D., 42 So. 3d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .

BRYANT, Jr. v. MOSTERT,, 636 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Pursuant to Florida law, It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement . . .

MACKERLEY, v. SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 284 F. App'x 736 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . not demonstrate that it satisfied the necessity requirement of the Florida wiretap statute, section 934.09 . . . Section 934.09(c) of the Florida Statutes requires that each application for a wiretap includes "[a] . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. JOHNSON, D. Jr., 281 F. App'x 909 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 934.09(l)(e). . . . We have held that the requirements of § 934.09 are met where the affiant “expressly and explicitly states . . . application was filed, and that an order was entered by the judge, it was sufficient to comply with § 934.09 . . . Stat. § 934.09(l)(c); see Shaktman v. State, 529 So.2d 711, 722 (Fla.App.1988). . . . Stat. § 934.09(4)(c). . . .

ATKINS, v. STATE, 930 So. 2d 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . victim and her Mend, as admission of the conversation violated the wiretap statute, sections 934.03-934.09 . . . Section 934.03(2)(c) provides a law enforcement exception: It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an . . .

MIGUT, v. FLYNN,, 131 F. App'x 262 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Section 934.03(2)(c) provides: It is lawful under §§ 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement . . .

O BRIEN, v. O BRIEN,, 899 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 . . .

STATE v. OTTE,, 887 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2004)

. . . file a sworn application providing detailed information in accordance with the requirements of section 934.09 . . . place where the intercept will occur is being used in connection with the commission of the crime. 934.09 . . . Under section 934.09(4), the authorizing order must be very specific. . . . .

COHEN BROTHERS, LLC. LLC, v. ME CORP. S. A., 872 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .

I. FIGUEROA, v. STATE, 870 So. 2d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . considered whether the State was required to seek court authorization pursuant to sections 934.07 and 934.09 . . . display pager without seeking or receiving the court authorization required by sections 934.07 and 934.09 . . . communication via a pager other than a tone-only pager requires a wire tap order under sections 934.07 and 934.09 . . .

L. VELDE, L. S. Jr. W. v. W. VELDE K., 867 So. 2d 501 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . State, 416 So.2d 853, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(finding that the term “proceeding” under section 934.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. AISENBERG, J., 358 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2004)

. . . conversations not otherwise subject to the interception authorization, as required by Florida Statute § 934.09 . . . (5) (1997); and (9) that the codnty detectives had not met" the elements of Florida Statute § 934.09( . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. AISENBERG J., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 934.09(3)(a), (b), and (d). IV. A. . . . Stat. § 934.09(5) (1997), an application to extend an intercept must meet the requirements of § 934.09 . . . Stat. § 934.09(l)(b)(l). . . . Stat. § 934.09(3)(a) and (b). . . . Stat. § 934.09(l)(b)(l). . . .

STATE v. FRATELLO, 835 So. 2d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .

REPORT OF THE SUPREME COURT WORKGROUP ON PUBLIC RECORDS, 825 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2002)

. . . are original recordings of the contents of any wire or oral communication made pursuant to Section 934.09 . . .

SAVERY, v. McCLURE,, 790 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . We quash that portion of the judgment cited above because it violates the provisions of section 934.09 . . .

STATE v. SOBEL,, 743 So. 2d 38 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes, neither complicated nor ambiguous: It is lawful under- §§ 934.03-934.09 . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 731 So. 2d 819 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . .- (2)(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person . . .

STATE v. McCORMICK, 719 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . seeking authorization to intercept and record oral and wire communications under subsections 934.07 and 934.09 . . . circuit judge’s instructions regarding sealing and custody of the tapes, thus complying with paragraph 934.09 . . . Custody of the recordings shall be wherever the judge orders.” § 934.09(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GLINTON,, 154 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . Stat. ch. 934.09(1) states: Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of . . . a wire, oral, or electronic communication under §§ 934.03-934.09 shall be made in writing upon oath . . . Under the Florida wiretap statute, ch. 934.09(l)(e), a warrant application must report "all previous . . .

STATE v. M. HERSHKOWITZ,, 714 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . . * * * # # * (c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer . . . application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .

STATE v. STOUT,, 693 So. 2d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Section 934.03 (2)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) provides: It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an . . .

WOOD, v. STATE, 654 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . faith reliance on: (a) A court order, subpoena, or legislative authorization as provided in ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .

STATE v. JACKSON,, 650 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1995)

. . . DUPLICATE DISPLAY PAGER, THE STATE OF FLORIDA MUST FIRST SEEK AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 934.07 AND 934.09 . . . the question to read: MUST THE STATE OF FLORIDA SEEK AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 934.07 AND 934.09 . . . to intercept such communications must follow the wiretap procedures set forth in sections 934.07 and 934.09 . . . Sections 934.07 and 934.09 set out a stringent procedure that applicants must follow to intercept wire . . . The plain language of section 934.09 does not indicate whether it applies to' any other type of pager . . .

UNITED STATES v. GREEN, Jr. a k a C- A. a k a Sr. a k a, 40 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 934.09(3)(a) (West Supp. 1994). Cf 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(a) (1988). . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.09(l)(e) (West Supp. 1994); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c) (1988). . . .

STATE v. RIVERS,, 643 So. 2d 3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . As such, pursuant to section 934.09(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes, McQue filed an affidavit and application . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 636 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 934.09 sets out the stringent procedures that must be followed before a judge can issue a wiretap . . . Statutes (1991), such that the state must first seek authorization pursuant to sections 934.07 and 934.09 . . . Ch. 88-184, § 5, at 1024, and § 7, at 1025 (codified as amended at §§ 934.07 and 934.09, Fla.Stat. . . . duplicate display pager, the state must strictly comply with the requirements of sections 934.07 and 934.09 . . . As noted, the state concedes, and the record reflects, noncompliance with sections 934.07 and 934.09. . . .

MILLER, v. STATE, 619 So. 2d 9 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 934.09(8) states: The contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or . . . unable to determine from the record whether Miller received the ten day notice required under section 934.09 . . .

ROYAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, d b a v. JEFFERSON- PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted ... in violation of [sections] 934.03-934.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CARRAZANA, Z., 921 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . Probable Cause Section 934.09(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that issuance of an order authorizing . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.09(l)(c) (West. Supp.1990); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.09(l)(d) (West Supp.1990); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(d). . . . relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that an order should be issued_” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.09 . . .

STATE v. JONES,, 562 So. 2d 740 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 934.09(9)(a) permits any aggrieved person to bring an action to suppress the contents of an unlawful . . . The defendant, as an aggrieved person to an unlawful interception, § 934.09(9), claimed the conversation . . . defendant is clearly an aggrieved person under the statute’s definition and therefore under section 934.09 . . .

SUTTON, v. STATE SUTTON, v. STATE, 556 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . . § 934.09(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985) (emphasis supplied). See Rodriguez v. . . .

SHAKTMAN, v. STATE, 553 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1989)

. . . . § 934.09(6), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROWN, UNITED STATES v. BRADSHAW, a k a a k a, 872 F.2d 385 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 2518(l)(a-f), and the Florida state statute, 934.09(l)(a-f), both required an application to include . . . this case, since the application was made by a state agent to a state judge, the Florida rule under 934.09 . . .

PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, v. B. McCORMICK, 542 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . The county court entered judgment against the McCormicks for $934.09. . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. STATE, 540 So. 2d 881 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . The authorization and application fully complied with the requirements of section 934.09, Florida Statutes . . . The Bagley and Wilson courts reasoned that, when a residence change occurs, section 934.09 requires that . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROWN, UNITED STATES v. BRADSHAW, a k a a k a, 862 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . intercepted, i.e., the information specifically required to be set forth in the application by Section 934.09 . . . A “narrow limitation” in the application of Section 934.09(l)(e) must, as determined by the Florida Fourth . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. ROSA,, 37 Fla. Supp. 2d 157 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1988)

. . . heard upon Motion of Defendant, RICKY ROBERT ROSA, filed pursuant to Fla.R.CrimlP. 3.190 and Section 934.09 . . .

SHAKTMAN, J. v. STATE, 529 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . State, 367 So.2d 601 (Fla.1978) (affidavits satisfied section 934.09(l)(c) where they explained that . . . We find that the affidavits fulfilled the necessity requirement of section 934.09(l)(c) by stating that . . . Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1983), provides in relevant part: (3) Upon such application, the judge . . . is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in s. 934.07. § 934.09 . . . The necessity requirement of section 934.09 is set forth as follows: 934.09 Procedure for interception . . .

STATE v. C. LOCKMAN,, 522 So. 2d 482 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The state seeks review of an order which under the authority of section 934.09(9)(a) and section 934.06 . . .

MORALES, v. STATE, 513 So. 2d 695 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . See § 934.09(9)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. THOMAS, 23 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1987)

. . . Defendant next points to the failure of the amended application to comply with F.S. 934.09 (a) through . . . S. 934.09(l)(c). . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. MCKINNEY,, 19 Fla. Supp. 2d 87 (Polk Cty. Ct. 1986)

. . . all of the above-captioned Defendants, said Motion made pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 934.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. DENNIS, Sr., 786 F.2d 1029 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 934.09(l)(c) (West 1973); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). . . .

UNITED STATES v. DOMME, Jr., 753 F.2d 950 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 934.09(l)(c) (West 1973); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). . . .

COVELLO, v. STATE, 462 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . that normal investigative techniques had failed or were unlikely to succeed, as is required by Section 934.09 . . . This argument is without merit because Section 934.09(l)(c) is satisfied if wiretapping appears to be . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. BASCARO, M. III, J. W. UNITED STATES v. W. JAMES,, 742 F.2d 1335 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 934.09(l)(c), Fla.Stats.; 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). . . .

P. J. a v. STATE, 453 So. 2d 470 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Section 934.09(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), provides for unlawfully intercepted evidence to be suppressed . . .

STATE v. EARLE, Sr. a k a El, 444 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Sections 934.09(1)(a), 934.02(6), Florida . . . See Secs. 934.09(4)(d); 934.02(10), Fla.Stat. . . .

PARKER C. v. STATE, 444 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . providing a full and complete statement about other investigative procedures as required by Section 934.09 . . . the identity on the application itself of the officer authorizing the application required by section 934.09 . . . Section 934.09(l)(a), (c) states: (1) Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception . . .

RIZZIERI v. STATE, 443 So. 2d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . After being informed, pursuant to Sec. 934.09(7)(e), Fla.Stat. (1981), that their telephone conversations . . . It is apparent that the appellants thus did not comply with the requirements of Sec. 934.09(9)(a), Fla.Stat . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. ENRIQUEZ,, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 70 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1983)

. . . Section 934.09(l)(e) provides in pertinent part, that; “A full and complete disclosure of the facts concerning . . . See Section 934.09(2). . . .

SMITH v. STATE, 438 So. 2d 10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . showing that normal investigative techniques have failed or are unlikely to succeed, required by section 934.09 . . . trial court concerning the issue of 'nonminimization of the interception of communications, section 934.09 . . .

E. COPELAND, III, v. STATE, 435 So. 2d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . (l)(c) and that the order did not satisfy the requirements of sections 934.09(3)(c) and (4)(e). . . . Sections 934.09(l)(c) and (3)(c) read: 934.09 Procedure for Interception of Wire or Oral Communications . . . Given that the application did not comply with section 934.09(l)(c), it necessarily follows that the . . . Lastly, section 934.09(4)(e) states: (4) Each order authorizing or approving the interception of any . . . See § 934.09(5), Fla.Stat. (1981). . . . .

STATE v. P. WEEDON, G. J. J. STATE v. MADDOCK D., 425 So. 2d 125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 934.09(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1981) requires that each order authorizing the interception of . . . Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1981) requires that each application include a complete statement . . .

SARNO, Al G. Jr. v. STATE STATE v. GILLEY,, 424 So. 2d 829 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . piggybacked” upon one another, were boilerplate in nature, and did not meet the standards set out in Section 934.09 . . . Section 934.09(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), requires inclusion in an application of “[a] full and . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. QUESADA,, 3 Fla. Supp. 2d 28 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1982)

. . . Section 934.09 specifically requires that each application for a wire intercept fully disclose all previous . . . Section 934.09, Florida Statutes; 18 U.S.C. §2518 (emphasis added). . . . the State contended that suppression was not the appropriate remedy for non-compliance of the Section 934.09 . . . The amendment application seriously falls short of the statutory requirements of 934.09. . . . The statutory requirement of 934.09(l)(c) that normal investigative procedures be exhausted prior to . . .

UNITED STATES v. HARVEY,, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1982)

. . . . § 934.09(3) to issue the order. . . . necessity for wiretapping as opposed to less invasive investigatory procedures as required by Fla.Stat. § 934.09 . . .

JACKSON, Jr. v. STATE, 416 So. 2d 853 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court refused to require disclosure under § 934.09(8), Fla.Stat . . . The trial court found that disclosure under § 934.09(8) was not required for the purposes of the sentencing . . . which was derived from an intercepted wire communication without requiring disclosure pursuant to § 934.09 . . . Section 934.09(8) is for all intents and purposes identical to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9) (1976), State v. . . . We see no reason why the same interpretation should not be given to § 934.09(8). . . .

A. GARDNER, v. BRADENTON HERALD, INC. DOE, v. BRADENTON HERALD, INC., 413 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1982)

. . . served with, an inventory or notification of interception of wire or oral communications pursuant to s. 934.09 . . . with an inventory or notification of interception of wire or oral communications pursuant to section 934.09 . . .

LLAMAS- ALMAGUER, a k a v. L. WAINWRIGHT,, 666 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . . § 934.09): staleness of evidence establishing probable cause and using one wiretap as probable cause . . .

STATE v. CARNEY,, 407 So. 2d 340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . conversations with Dennis Hogan which had been acquired under a wiretap. issued pursuant to Section 934.09 . . . Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1979), provides numerous safeguards protecting citizens from unwarranted . . . the motion to suppress as adopted by the trial court in its order granting same related to Section 934.09 . . . Under the procedures required by Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1979), the state made an application . . . We therefore conclude that the motion to suppress filed pursuant to Section 934.09(9)(a) was erroneously . . .

E. MURPHY v. STATE, 402 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . The probable cause required by Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1979), has not been shown. . . .

BAGLEY, v. STATE, 397 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Both section 934.09(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and its federal counterpart, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1), state . . . Section 934.09(l)(a)-(f) then sets forth the procedural requirements for an application for an order . . .

STATE v. BIRS, a k a Dr. a k a, 394 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . normal investigative procedures had been tried and failed or were too dangerous, as required by Section 934.09 . . . The third basis for suppression of the evidence below was a supposed failure to comply with Section 934.09 . . .

STATE v. ALBANO,, 394 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . intercept and the accompanying application at least ten days prior to the hearing pursuant to Section 934.09 . . . herein available” and moved at the same time for a waiver of the ten day period prescribed by Section 934.09 . . . However, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9) is for all intents and purposes identical with Section 934.09(8), and there . . . The purpose of the notice required by Section 934.09(8), Florida Statutes, as stated in Kohne, supra, . . . Rather, in order to read Section 934.09(8) in conjunction with the rest of Chapter 934 and consistent . . .

BOULER, v. STATE, 389 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . because appellant did not receive notice of the wiretap within the ninety day period provided by section 934.09 . . . prejudice accruing to him by reason of the delayed service of notice of the wiretap required by section 934.09 . . .

STATE v. SHAKTMAN,, 389 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Napoli, 373 So.2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (holding that the custody and seal provisions of Section 934.09 . . .

SCHEIDER, v. STATE PAGAN, v. STATE SCHEIDER, v. STATE, 389 So. 2d 251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 934.09(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1977) requires that any application for authorization to intercept wire . . .

UNITED STATES v. FARESE, 612 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . Pursuant to Section 934.09(l)(b), Florida Statutes, the facts and circumstances relied upon by your Affiant . . . Pursuant to Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes, a particular description of the type of communications . . . Pursuant to Section 934.09(l)(b), Florida Statutes, a particular description of the nature and location . . . Pursuant to Section 934.09(l)(d), Florida Statutes, the period of time that the interception will be . . . Pursuant to Section 934.09(1)(3), Florida Statutes, to the Affiant’s knowledge, no other order has been . . .

STATE v. J. TSAVARIS,, 382 So. 2d 56 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 934.09(7)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .

STATE v. E. MANNING C., 379 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . telephone sought to be tapped is being used, or is about to be used, in connection with the offense. 934.09 . . .

WILSON, v. STATE, 377 So. 2d 237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . as the supplement and amendment fails to comply with the procedural requirements set out in Section 934.09 . . . Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes, requires “A full and complete statement as to whether or not . . . to Affidavit for Application dated March 21, 1977 does not comply with the requirements of Section 934.09 . . .

VINALES, v. STATE ALVAREZ, v. STATE DE CASTRO, v. STATE, 374 So. 2d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . State pursuant to orders for the interception of wire communications entered under authority of Section 934.09 . . . The relevant portion of Section 934.09(5), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: * * * * * * “Every order . . .

STATE v. NAPOLI, Jr., 373 So. 2d 933 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . The tape was not properly safeguarded by the State in accordance with the provisions of Section 934.09 . . . Section 934.09(7)(a), (b) provides: The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by any . . . The trial court applied the provisions of Sections 934.09(7)(a), (b) in requiring the state, even in . . . authorized and regulated and the contents thereof protected in accordance with the provisions of Section 934.09 . . .

F. SARMIENTO, v. STATE, 371 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . constitutional requirements for such intercept warrants which are in turn implemented by Sections 934.07, 934.09 . . .

HUDSON, v. STATE, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . the tape recordings and transcripts obtained through the court-ordered wiretap pursuant to Section 934.09 . . . had failed or would be unlikely to succeed, (4) nonrecognition of an authorized object under Section 934.09 . . . Before a wiretap order can be issued, Section 934.09(3), Florida Statutes requires that the judge based . . . Probable cause in the context of the requirements of Section 934.09(3), Florida Statutes (1975) has been . . . providing a full and complete statement about other investigative techniques as required by Section 934.09 . . . to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 12, of the Florida Constitution and Sections 934.09 . . . State, 297 So.2d 15 (Fla.1974); § 934.09(3), Fla.Stat. (1977). . . . It is finally prohibited by Section 934.09(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1977), which requires that wiretap . . .

DANIELS, a k a v. STATE, 381 So. 2d 707 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . F.S. 934.09 sets forth the procedure for interception of wire or oral communications in Florida. . . . only puts in motion the procedure to obtain such authority from a judicial officer pursuant to Section 934.09 . . . this court, speaking of an application for a postponement of serving of inventories pursuant to F.S. 934.09 . . . motion to suppress because of delay in service of the post-interception inventory required by F.S. 934.09 . . .

B. MITCHELL v. STATE, 381 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . attorney, cannot authorize an application for extension or postponement of serving of inventories under § 934.09 . . . . § 934.09(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1975), provides in pertinent part as follows: “(3) Upon such . . . the necessary facts and circumstances to support the issuance of the wiretap order, as required by § 934.09 . . . upon them by the state was invalid and should have resulted in an order suppressing the evidence. § 934.09 . . .

STATE v. AURILIO, Di, 366 So. 2d 71 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Several of the reports required to be filed by Section 934.09(6), Florida Statutes, were not filed by . . . This information is specifically required to be set forth in the application by Sections 934.09(l)(b) . . .

CAMPBELL, v. STATE, 365 So. 2d 751 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Campbell argues further that Herron’s testimony should have been suppressed since § 934.09(7)(a) requires . . . Section 934.09 pertains to the procedure for interception of wire or oral communications after an order . . . were not authorized by court order nor were they required by law to be; therefore, the provisions of § 934.09 . . .

ZUPPARDI, v. STATE, 367 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1978)

. . . They also moved to suppress the intercepted communications, on grounds of non-compliance with Section 934.09 . . . other investigative procedures had been tried or appeared unlikely to succeed, as required by Section 934.09 . . . to justify the magistrate’s conclusion that the potential for harm was real and that, under Section 934.09 . . . Adherence to the strict statutory procedures prescribed in Section 934.09, as occurred here, accommodates . . . State, 297 So.2d 15, 17 (Fla.1974). .§ 934.09(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1975). . . .

S. CUBA a k a v. STATE FLORES a k a a k a a k a v. STATE MENESES a k a v. STATE, 362 So. 2d 29 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . That argument is predicated on the requirement of the statute [934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1975)] . . .

UNITED STATES v. HYDE, Jr. UNITED STATES v. MIDDLEBROOKS,, 574 F.2d 856 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . . § 2518(3)(c); Florida Statutes § 934.09. Otherwise no valid order can issue. Cf. Berger v. . . . Two defendants contend that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5) and Florida Statutes § 934.09(5) . . .

HICKS, v. STATE, 359 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . service of post-interception inventory granted by the court on motion of Appellee under Florida Statute § 934.09 . . . Under Florida Statute § 934.09 the trial court’s discretion is properly exercised as to post-interception . . . In the absence of an affirmative showing of prejudice, subsection (8) of § 934.09 provides that even . . . L.Ed.2d 652, the Supreme Court considered the purpose for the federal counterpart of Florida Statute § 934.09 . . . J., and ERVIN, J., concur. .Florida Statute § 934.09(7)(e): “Within a reasonable time but not later than . . .

MINKUS, v. STATE, 356 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Additionally, I do not feel the affidavit sufficiently complies with Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes . . . portion of the affidavit which attempts to comply with this requirement is: “(7) Pursuant to Section 934.09 . . .

STATE v. E. BARNETT,, 354 So. 2d 422 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 934.09(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1976). . Id. . See United States v. . . .

QUINTANA, v. STATE, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . inventory” provided in the statute was not served within the ninety day period provided for by Section 934.09 . . .

STATE v. NEWS- PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY, a k a a, 338 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . On the other hand, Section 934.09(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1973) provides that any “aggrieved person” . . . Since the defendant in its brief concedes that its contention of standing does not derive from Section 934.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. COHEN,, 530 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . . § 934.09(3), (4)(c), (5), (7) (1973). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. CACACE,, 529 F.2d 1167 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . . § 934.09(c) (1973). . . .

RODRIGUEZ, a k a v. STATE, 298 So. 2d 205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . . § '934.09(5), the judgments are hereby reversed on the authority of Rodriguez v. . . .

G. HORN, v. STATE, 298 So. 2d 194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . (F.S. 934.06; F.S. 934.09(8)) Further, the Supreme Court of Florida has already so interpreted Chapter . . . Florida Statute 934.09(8), F.S.A. provides in material part as follows: “The contents of any intercepted . . .

RODRIGUEZ v. STATE, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974)

. . . . § 934.09, F.S.A. provides the procedure under which a wiretap order may be issued; subsection (l)(b . . . F.S. § 934.09(3)(a) and (b), F.S.A. . . . Mere suspicion is insufficient to authorize issuance of a wiretap order; § 934.09 specifically requires . . . F.S. § 934.09(5), F.S.A. provides: “Every order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that . . . Although the wiretap minimization provision of § 934.09(5) has apparently never been construed by the . . .

In GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. In COBO,, 287 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1973)

. . . . § 934.09(9)(a), F.S.A., provides as follows: “Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding . . . called to testify before the grand jury) to move to suppress such violative information because F.S. § 934.09 . . . Legislature in 1969 could have simply through inadvertence failed to include the words “grand jury” in F.S. § 934.09 . . . A., supra, that no unauthorized wiretap information is to be received by a grand jury, but F.S. § 934.09 . . . The subject motions alleged that petitioners were 'aggrieved’ persons within the purview of Section 934.09 . . . [Section 934.09(9)(a)] “A careful examination of the two foregoing sections of the statute makes it clearly . . . issuing an order for the interception of wire and oral communications, pursuant to Sections 934.02 and 934.09 . . . Legislature in 1969 could have simply through inadvertance failed to include the words ‘grand jury’ in F.S. § 934.09 . . .

COUNTY OF DADE, v. FRANGIPANE,, 281 So. 2d 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . the offense was not derived from the wiretap, and therefore the pretrial delivery of papers under § 934.09 . . .