The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
|
||||||
|
Petitioner argues that Cook's December 2004 affidavit failed to comply with §§ 934.09(1)(c) and (e). Section 934.09(1)(c) provides that an application for an order authorizing a wire intercept must contain “[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.” § 934.09(1)(c), Fla. Stat. According to § 934.09(1)(e), the affidavit must also include “[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 for 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.” § 934.09(1)(e), Fla. Stat.Wiretaps are governed by sections 934.03 – 934.09 of the Florida Statutes. Suppression of the results of the use of this investigative tool is addressed in section 934.09, which provides in relevant part as follows:The Florida Wiretap Act closely follows the Federal Wiretap Act and similarly proscribes intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication and excludes the use of such interceptions and evidence derived from those interceptions in court. Fla. Stat. §§ 934.03(1)(a), 934.06. One key difference between the federal and Florida acts is that, under Florida law, the prior consent of all parties is required for the recording to be legal. Id. § 934.03(2)(d). Like the federal law, § 934.09 sets forth how to apply for authorization to intercept communications and allows an "aggrieved person" to move to suppress the contents of an intercepted communication if it was unlawfully intercepted. See id. § 934.09(1), (10)(a). An aggrieved person is an individual who was a party to the intercepted communication or against whom the interception was directed. Id. § 934.02(9).Smiley argues that his recorded statements were obtained in violation of Florida's wiretap law, which provides that with certain exceptions, it is unlawful to "[i]ntentionally intercept[ ] ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication." § 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2018). Unless all parties to the communication consent, or the interception is otherwise authorized by law, an interception made in violation of the wiretap law is generally inadmissible as evidence in any trial or legal proceeding. § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2018). When a communication has been unlawfully intercepted, the aggrieved party may move to suppress the contents of the interception or any evidence derived from it. See §§ 934.06, 934.09(10)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). A party moving to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the wiretap law must show that the communications are the type of communications protected by the statutory exclusionary rule.Before approving a wiretap, a judge must determine that normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed or reasonably appear unlikely to succeed or are too dangerous. § 934.09(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2005). The law enforcement agency need not show that it exhausted all other possible investigative techniques before seeking wiretap authorization; "[n]or must every other conceivable method of investigation be unsuccessfully attempted before electronic surveillance will be authorized." United States v. Johnson, 281 F. App'x 909, 912 (11th Cir. 2008) citing Shaktman v. State, 529 So. 2d 711, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA1988). --------Florida's wiretap statutes provide that any aggrieved person (defined as a person who was a party to any intercepted wire or oral communication, or a person against whom the interception was directed, see § 934.02(9)), in any trial may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the ground that the communication was unlawfully intercepted. Fla. Stat. § 934.09(10). The statutes provide that it is lawful for an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. See Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(c).The Florida Wiretap Act states, in part, that: "[a]ny person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03- 934.09 shall have a civil cause of action against any person or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or entity to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications . . . ." Fla. Stat. § 934.10(1). The elements of a cause of action under the Florida Wiretap Act are: (1) the person whose communication was intercepted must be a Florida resident, or the interception must have occurred in Florida; (2) the person whose communication was intercepted had a subjective expectation of privacy in the intercepted communication and (3) society must recognize the expectation of privacy as reasonable. See Cohen Bros., LLC v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So. 2d 321, 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (per curiam) (citing State v. Smith, 641 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1994)).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, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.... Section 934.09(10)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), additionally provides:Under the federal and Florida wiretap statutes, an application for a wiretap warrant must contain, among other things, 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." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c); Fla. Stat. § 934.09( 1)(c). Similarly, a judge may authorize the wiretap if "normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c); Fla. Stat. § 934.09( 3)(c). However, "the statute does not require an initial exhaustion of all conceivable investigatory techniques," but was simply intended "to inform the issuing judge of the difficulties involved in the use of conventional techniques." United States v. Alonso, 740 F.2d 862, 868 (11th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted); see also Hudson v. State, 368 So. 2d 899, 902-03 (Fla. 3d DCA1979) (stating the Florida wiretap statute does not require "a comprehensive exhaustion of all possible techniques"). Thus, the affidavit accompanying the application does not need to recite… (e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation;. . . 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 . . .
. . . wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .
. . . . § 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. . . . .
. . . by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 . . .
. . . wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .
. . . Pursuant to Florida law, It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement . . .
. . . 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] . . .
. . . . § 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). . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . Section 934.03(2)(c) provides: It is lawful under §§ 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement . . .
. . . by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 . . .
. . . 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. . . . .
. . . wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . State, 416 So.2d 853, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(finding that the term “proceeding” under section 934.09 . . .
. . . 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( . . .
. . . . § 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). . . .
. . . application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .
. . . are original recordings of the contents of any wire or oral communication made pursuant to Section 934.09 . . .
. . . We quash that portion of the judgment cited above because it violates the provisions of section 934.09 . . .
. . . section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes, neither complicated nor ambiguous: It is lawful under- §§ 934.03-934.09 . . .
. . . .- (2)(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person . . .
. . . 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). . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . . * * * # # * (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 . . .
. . . Section 934.03 (2)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) provides: It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an . . .
. . . faith reliance on: (a) A court order, subpoena, or legislative authorization as provided in ss. 934.03-934.09 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . . § 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). . . .
. . . As such, pursuant to section 934.09(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes, McQue filed an affidavit and application . . .
. . . 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. . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted ... in violation of [sections] 934.03-934.09 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . . § 934.09(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985) (emphasis supplied). See Rodriguez v. . . .
. . . . § 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 . . .
. . . The county court entered judgment against the McCormicks for $934.09. . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . heard upon Motion of Defendant, RICKY ROBERT ROSA, filed pursuant to Fla.R.CrimlP. 3.190 and Section 934.09 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . The state seeks review of an order which under the authority of section 934.09(9)(a) and section 934.06 . . .
. . . See § 934.09(9)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). . . .
. . . Defendant next points to the failure of the amended application to comply with F.S. 934.09 (a) through . . . S. 934.09(l)(c). . . .
. . . all of the above-captioned Defendants, said Motion made pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 934.09 . . .
. . . . § 934.09(l)(c) (West 1973); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). . . .
. . . . § 934.09(l)(c) (West 1973); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . . § 934.09(l)(c), Fla.Stats.; 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). . . .
. . . Section 934.09(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), provides for unlawfully intercepted evidence to be suppressed . . .
. . . 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. . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . Section 934.09(l)(e) provides in pertinent part, that; “A full and complete disclosure of the facts concerning . . . See Section 934.09(2). . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . (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). . . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . . § 934.09(3) to issue the order. . . . necessity for wiretapping as opposed to less invasive investigatory procedures as required by Fla.Stat. § 934.09 . . .
. . . 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). . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . . § 934.09): staleness of evidence establishing probable cause and using one wiretap as probable cause . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . The probable cause required by Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1979), has not been shown. . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . Napoli, 373 So.2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (holding that the custody and seal provisions of Section 934.09 . . .
. . . . § 934.09(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1977) requires that any application for authorization to intercept wire . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . . § 934.09(7)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .
. . . telephone sought to be tapped is being used, or is about to be used, in connection with the offense. 934.09 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . pursuant to orders for the interception of wire communications entered under author ity of Section 934.09 . . . The relevant portion of Section 934.09(5), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: * * * * * * “Every order . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . constitutional requirements for such intercept warrants which are in turn implemented by Sections 934.07, 934.09 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 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 . . .
. . . 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). . . .
. . . That argument is predicated on the requirement of the statute [934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1975)] . . .
. . . . § 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) . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . Section 934.09(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1976). . Id. . See United States v. . . .
. . . inventory” provided in the statute was not served within the ninety day period provided for by Section 934.09 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . . § 934.09(3), (4)(c), (5), (7) (1973). . . . .
. . . . § 934.09(c) (1973). . . .
. . . . § '934.09(5), the judgments are hereby reversed on the authority of Rodriguez v. . . .
. . . (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 . . .
. . . . § 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 . . .
. . . . § 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 . . .
. . . the offense was not derived from the wiretap, and therefore the pretrial delivery of pa pers under § 934.09 . . .