The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 . . .
. . . 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 papers under § 934.09 . . .