Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 934.09 (2025)

Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

934.09 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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 77 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003). · cites it 31× “See Fla. Stat. § 934.09 (3)(a), (b), and (d).”

Hudson v. State, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). · cites it 18× “Hudson contends that the trial court should have suppressed the tape recordings and transcripts obtained through the court-ordered wiretap pursuant to Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1975) on the grounds of (1) lack of probable cause and staleness, (2) omissions and…”

Rodriguez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974). · cites it 16× “PROBABLE CAUSE F.S. § 934.09, F.S.A. provides the procedure under which a wiretap order may be issued; subsection (1)(b) requires a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the applicant's belief that an order should be issued, including…”

Shaktman v. State, 529 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). · cites it 14× “[14] Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1983), provides in relevant part: (3) Upon such application, the judge may enter an ex parte order .”

In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 287 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1973). · cites it 13× “The subject motions alleged that petitioners were `aggrieved' persons within the purview of Section 934.09, Florida Statutes; that the orders of authorization and approval under which the wire and oral communications were intercepted were not properly issued; the communications…”

United States v. Thomas Ralph Farese, 612 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 8× “Pursuant to Section 934.09(1)(3), Florida Statutes, to the Affiant’s knowledge, no other order has been made for an Order authorizing the interception of communications regarding the premises, above described, (and/or) the indicated persons, (and/or) any persons connected with…”

State v. Albano, 394 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). · cites it 13× “-09(8) must be read as having the nature of a discovery device, its purpose being to give notice of the intercept to parties in the proceeding who did not receive notice pursuant to Section 934.09(7)(e). The state’s noncomplianee with Section 934.”

Copeland v. State, 435 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). · cites it 12× “) The state admits that the application did not indicate pursuant to section 934.09(1)(c) whether law enforcement officials tried normal investigative procedures which failed or why such procedures reasonably appeared either to be unlikely to succeed or to be too dangerous if…”

Zuppardi v. State, 367 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1978). · cites it 9× “[15] Adherence to the strict statutory procedures prescribed in Section 934.09, as occurred here, accommodates both the needs of law enforcement officials and the legislature's asserted objective simultaneously "to protect effectively the privacy of .”

United States v. Harvey, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1983). · cites it 4× “Defendants Jernigan and Harvey, among others, argue that there was insufficient probable cause in accordance with Fla.Stat. § 934.09(3) to issue the order.”

Bagley v. State, 397 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). · cites it 5× “Both section 934.09(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and its federal counterpart, 18 U.”

State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). · cites it 4× “" On the other hand, Section 934.09(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1973) provides that any "aggrieved person" may move to suppress an unlawful intercept, and Section 934.”

Show all 77 citing cases →

— 934.09(1) — 7 cases

State v. Otte, 887 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2004).

Bagley v. State, 397 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). “Both section 934.09(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and its federal counterpart, 18 U.”

United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “See Fla. Stat. § 934.09 (3)(a), (b), and (d).”

Hudson v. State, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). “Hudson contends that the trial court should have suppressed the tape recordings and transcripts obtained through the court-ordered wiretap pursuant to Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1975) on the grounds of (1) lack of probable cause and staleness, (2) omissions and…”

Wilson v. State, 377 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

— 934.09(1)(3) — 1 case

United States v. Thomas Ralph Farese, 612 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1980). “Pursuant to Section 934.09(1)(3), Florida Statutes, to the Affiant’s knowledge, no other order has been made for an Order authorizing the interception of communications regarding the premises, above described, (and/or) the indicated persons, (and/or) any persons connected with…”

— 934.09(1)(a) — 1 case

Bagley v. State, 397 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). “Both section 934.09(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and its federal counterpart, 18 U.”

— 934.09(1)(b) — 2 cases

State v. Barnett, 354 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

— 934.09(1)(c) — 8 cases

Shaktman v. State, 529 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “[14] Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1983), provides in relevant part: (3) Upon such application, the judge may enter an ex parte order .”

Zuppardi v. State, 367 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1978). “[15] Adherence to the strict statutory procedures prescribed in Section 934.09, as occurred here, accommodates both the needs of law enforcement officials and the legislature's asserted objective simultaneously "to protect effectively the privacy of .”

Wilson v. State, 377 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Sarno v. State, 424 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

— 934.09(1)(d) — 1 case

Copeland v. State, 435 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “) The state admits that the application did not indicate pursuant to section 934.09(1)(c) whether law enforcement officials tried normal investigative procedures which failed or why such procedures reasonably appeared either to be unlikely to succeed or to be too dangerous if…”

— 934.09(10)(a) — 3 cases

Brugmann v. State, 117 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Jamie Geer v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

State of Florida Vs Yahaira Mojica Phipps (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

— 934.09(2) — 1 case

State v. Enriquez, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 70 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1983).

— 934.09(3) — 8 cases

Rodriguez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974). “PROBABLE CAUSE F.S. § 934.09, F.S.A. provides the procedure under which a wiretap order may be issued; subsection (1)(b) requires a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the applicant's belief that an order should be issued, including…”

United States v. Harvey, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1983). “Defendants Jernigan and Harvey, among others, argue that there was insufficient probable cause in accordance with Fla.Stat. § 934.09(3) to issue the order.”

United States v. Kenneth Cohen, 530 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1976).

State v. Birs, 394 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

— 934.09(3)(a) — 6 cases

Shaktman v. State, 529 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “[14] Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1983), provides in relevant part: (3) Upon such application, the judge may enter an ex parte order .”

United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “See Fla. Stat. § 934.09 (3)(a), (b), and (d).”

United States v. Carrazana, 921 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1991).

— 934.09(3)(c) — 3 cases

State v. Birs, 394 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

— 934.09(3)(d) — 2 cases

Sutton v. State, 556 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

— 934.09(4) — 1 case

State v. Otte, 887 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2004).

— 934.09(4)(c) — 2 cases

State v. Weedon, 425 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

— 934.09(4)(e) — 1 case

— 934.09(5) — 7 cases

Smith v. State, 438 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

State v. Berjah, 266 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

— 934.09(6) — 2 cases

Shaktman v. State, 553 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1989).

State v. Aurilio, 366 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

— 934.09(7) — 3 cases

Gardner v. Bradenton Herald, Inc., 413 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1982).

State v. Berjah, 266 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

State v. Blackburn, 35 Fla. Supp. 202 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Seminole Cty. 1971).

— 934.09(7)(a) — 5 cases

State v. Tsavaris, 382 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

State v. Napoli, 373 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

State v. McCormick, 719 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Campbell v. State, 365 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

State v. Quesada, 3 Fla. Supp. 2d 28 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1982).

— 934.09(7)(d) — 1 case

Mitchell v. State, 381 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

— 934.09(7)(e) — 8 cases

Bouler v. State, 389 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Daniels v. State, 381 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

State v. Albano, 394 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). “-09(8) must be read as having the nature of a discovery device, its purpose being to give notice of the intercept to parties in the proceeding who did not receive notice pursuant to Section 934.09(7)(e). The state’s noncomplianee with Section 934.”

Hicks v. State, 359 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

State v. Berjah, 266 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

— 934.09(8) — 6 cases

Jackson v. State, 416 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Horn v. State, 298 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

Velde v. Velde, 867 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Miller v. State, 619 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

— 934.09(9) — 2 cases

State v. Jones, 562 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

In re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Evidence Obtained by Court Authorized Wiretaps, 276 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).

— 934.09(9)(a) — 8 cases

In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 287 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1973). “The subject motions alleged that petitioners were `aggrieved' persons within the purview of Section 934.09, Florida Statutes; that the orders of authorization and approval under which the wire and oral communications were intercepted were not properly issued; the communications…”

State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). “" On the other hand, Section 934.09(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1973) provides that any "aggrieved person" may move to suppress an unlawful intercept, and Section 934.”

Morales v. State, 513 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

State v. Jones, 562 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

P.J. v. State, 453 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

— 934.09(9)(a)(l) — 1 case

United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “See Fla. Stat. § 934.09 (3)(a), (b), and (d).”

— 934.09(l)(a) — 2 cases

Parker v. State, 444 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

State v. Rivers, 643 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

— 934.09(l)(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Carrazana, 921 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1991).

— 934.09(l)(c) — 12 cases

United States v. Bobby Roy Dennis, Sr., Sharon Denise Cohen, Clarence Bobby Jennings, Brenda Jewell Hurley, 786 F.2d 1029 (11th Cir. 1986).

United States v. Sylvester Anthony Domme, Jr. & Thomas Allen Domme, 753 F.2d 950 (11th Cir. 1985).

United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “See Fla. Stat. § 934.09 (3)(a), (b), and (d).”

State v. Weedon, 425 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

— 934.09(l)(d) — 2 cases

United States v. Carrazana, 921 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1991).

— 934.09(l)(e) — 2 cases

State v. Quesada, 3 Fla. Supp. 2d 28 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1982).

State v. Enriquez, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 70 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1983).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.