934.10
Civil remedies.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
934.10 Civil remedies.—
(1) Any 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 and shall be entitled to recover from any such person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate, including:
(a) Preliminary or equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;
(b) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher;
(c) Punitive damages; and
(d) A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
(2) A good faith reliance on:
(b) A request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under s. 934.09(7), or
(c) A good faith determination that Florida or federal law, other than 18 U.S.C. s. 2511(2)(d), permitted the conduct complained of
shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal, or administrative action arising out of such conduct under the laws of this state.
(3) A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
History.—s. 10, ch. 69-17; s. 3, ch. 78-376; s. 8, ch. 88-184; s. 8, ch. 89-269; s. 12, ch. 2000-369.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Burgess v. Burgess
Burgess v. Burgess (1984)
“§ 934.10, Fla. Stat. (1979). The language of section 934.”
Minotty v. Baudo (2010)
“Claim for Interception of Communications Pursuant to Section 934.10, Florida Statutes Dr. Minotty argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the illegal interception of communications claim because no oral communications were ever intercepted.”
Allocco v. City of Coral Gables (2002)
“By its terms, the Officer Bill of Rights applies only to “full time law enforcement officers, as defined by Fla. Stat. § 934.10 . As extensively discussed in the earlier part of this order, for purposes of Fla.”
Stalley v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. (2013)
“” Fla. Stat. § 934.10 (l)(b). After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court is not persuaded that the relief Stalley and Hallback request is incidental to injunctive relief and that certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2).”
Wood v. State (1995)
“The proffer discloses that appellant had researched case law and spoken with many people, some of whom had worked on amendments to section 934.10(2)(b), Florida Statutes, from which his defense arose.”
Bollea v. Clem (2013)
“Bollea asserts five causes of action against Heather Clem: (1) invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, (2) publication of private facts, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (5) violation of Section…”
Rubin v. State (1986)
“(1985) (codification of rule that good faith reliance on invalid divorce decree is complete defense to bigamy prosecution), and that, although only the Florida Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disciplinary matters, good faith reliance on a court order will likely not result…”
John Williams v. Robert B. Carney (2005)
“§§ 1983 and 1985; (2) section 934.10, Florida Statutes; 1 and (3) state law governing “intentional torts,” “abuse of process,” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Accept. Ins. Co. v. Bates, Dunning & Assoc., Inc. (2003)
“NOTES [1] Section 934.10 provides an injured party with civil remedies for violation of section 934.”
Cohen Brothers, LLC. v. Me Corp., Sa (2004)
“*324 § 934.10(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). The term "person" as used in this provision is defined as: [A]ny employee or agent of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual,…”
Roberts v. Jardine (1978)
“Upon learning of the existence of the tape, respondent filed a civil action for damages alleging that petitioner had intercepted their telephone conversation by means of an electronic or mechanical device in violation of Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1977). Thereafter,…”
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Lazzara Oil Co. (1992)
“The suit for damages was based upon section 934.10 which provides for the recovery of damages from "[a]ny person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted .”
— 934.10(1) — 3 cases
Cohen Brothers, LLC. v. Me Corp., Sa (2004)
“*324 § 934.10(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). The term "person" as used in this provision is defined as: [A]ny employee or agent of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual,…”
Bollea v. Clem (2013)
“Bollea asserts five causes of action against Heather Clem: (1) invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, (2) publication of private facts, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (5) violation of Section…”
— 934.10(1)(a) — 3 cases
Stalley v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. (2013)
“” Fla. Stat. § 934.10 (l)(b). After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court is not persuaded that the relief Stalley and Hallback request is incidental to injunctive relief and that certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2).”
— 934.10(2) — 3 cases
Accept. Ins. Co. v. Bates, Dunning & Assoc., Inc. (2003)
“NOTES [1] Section 934.10 provides an injured party with civil remedies for violation of section 934.”
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Lazzara Oil Co. (1992)
“The suit for damages was based upon section 934.10 which provides for the recovery of damages from "[a]ny person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted .”
— 934.10(2)(b) — 1 case
Wood v. State (1995)
“The proffer discloses that appellant had researched case law and spoken with many people, some of whom had worked on amendments to section 934.10(2)(b), Florida Statutes, from which his defense arose.”
— 934.10(2)(c) — 2 cases
Perdue v. State (2012)
— 934.10(3) — 2 cases
Wander v. Feinberg (1991)
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.