Florida Statute 934.10 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS

Chapter 934
SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS; SURVEILLANCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 934.10

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;

(d) A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

(2) A good faith reliance on:

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

(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.

F.S. 934.10 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.10 on CourtListener

Amendments to 934.10

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 934.10

Total Results: 36

Philip J. Scutieri, Jr. And Jacqueline Simmons v. Duriel "Budd" Paige and Alcides Marquez, James Graham, Philip J. Scutieri, Jr. And Jacqueline Simmons v. Duriel "Budd" Paige, Alcides Marquez

808 F.2d 785

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 6, 1987 | Docket: 968627

Cited 38 times | Published

Sec. 605, a Florida wiretapping statute, Fla.Stat. 934.10, a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and claims

Minotty v. Baudo

42 So. 3d 824, 2010 WL 2882460

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2010 | Docket: 2396651

Cited 15 times | Published

Interception of Communications Pursuant to Section 934.10, Florida Statutes Dr. Minotty argues that the

Royal Health Care Services, Incorporated, D/B/A Best Care v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company

924 F.2d 215, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2713, 1991 WL 11506

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 21, 1991 | Docket: 828516

Cited 14 times | Published

interception of an oral communication under section 934.10 of the Act. Royal Health sought compensatory

Scutieri v. Paige

808 F.2d 785, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 994

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 26, 1987 | Docket: 66222350

Cited 13 times | Published

S.C. § 605, a Florida wiretapping statute, Fla.Stat. 934.10, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and claims

Kountze v. Kountze

996 So. 2d 246, 2008 WL 5191571

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2008 | Docket: 1692200

Cited 11 times | Published

claiming the right to receive a civil remedy under section 934.10 of the Act for an illegal recording of a telephone

Allocco v. City of Coral Gables

221 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16563, 2002 WL 2002408

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2002 | Docket: 2017302

Cited 10 times | Published

enforcement officers, as defined by Fla. Stat. § 934.10. As extensively discussed in the earlier part

Rubin v. State

490 So. 2d 1001, 55 U.S.L.W. 2066

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1986 | Docket: 1743170

Cited 10 times | Published

1974) (good faith reliance on wiretap order); § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (1985) (codification of rule that

Scutieri v. Estate of Revitz

683 F. Supp. 795, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7944, 1988 WL 32647

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 1988 | Docket: 2121397

Cited 6 times | Published

Florida Privacy of Communications Claim (Fla.Stat. § 934.10) The parties agree that this statute is modeled

Roberts v. Jardine

358 So. 2d 588

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 1978 | Docket: 1691021

Cited 6 times | Published

electronic or mechanical device in violation of Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1977). Thereafter, respondent

Horning-Keating v. Employers Ins. of Wausau

969 So. 2d 412, 2007 WL 3118841

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2007 | Docket: 1726006

Cited 5 times | Published

fraud;[3] (4) he had a good *417 faith belief under section 934.10(2) of the Florida Statutes that the tape recording

Burgess v. Burgess

447 So. 2d 220

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 1984 | Docket: 109188

Cited 5 times | Published

one spouse against the other spouse, under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979)? Burgess v. Burgess

France v. France

90 So. 3d 860, 2012 WL 1956352, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8799

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2012 | Docket: 60309668

Cited 4 times | Published

*864In providing a private cause of action, section 934.10 would appear to - be punitive in nature. The

Reliance Ins. Co. v. Lazzara Oil Co.

601 So. 2d 1241, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6527, 1992 WL 135448

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 1992 | Docket: 1710940

Cited 4 times | Published

interception. The suit for damages was based upon section 934.10 which provides for the recovery of damages

Bollea v. Clem

937 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 2013 WL 1296076, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44625

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2013 | Docket: 65990331

Cited 3 times | Published

of emotional distress, and (5) violation of Section 934.10, Florida Statutes.2 If one of Bollea’s claims

Cohen Brothers, LLC. v. Me Corp., Sa

872 So. 2d 321, 2004 WL 784885

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2004 | Docket: 1357001

Cited 3 times | Published

disclose, or use, such communications.... *324 § 934.10(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). The term "person" as used

Accept. Ins. Co. v. Bates, Dunning & Assoc., Inc.

858 So. 2d 1068, 2003 WL 21919584

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2003 | Docket: 1513524

Cited 3 times | Published

Rubino action. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] Section 934.10 provides an injured party with civil remedies

Wood v. State

654 So. 2d 218, 1995 WL 232512

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1995 | Docket: 1303525

Cited 3 times | Published

people, some of whom had worked on amendments to section 934.10(2)(b), Florida Statutes, from which his defense

Armstrong v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

366 So. 2d 88

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1979 | Docket: 1227810

Cited 2 times | Published

entitling them to a cause of action pursuant to Florida Statute 934.10. That statute provides in material part

Stalley v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.

997 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 2014 WL 349489, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12124

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2014 | Docket: 65997453

Cited 1 times | Published

occurred and there can be no liability under section 934.10. The exception has two prongs. First, the communication

Jatar v. Lamaletto

758 So. 2d 1167, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5252, 2000 WL 525888

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 2000 | Docket: 64797555

Cited 1 times | Published

brought an action for civil remedies pursuant to section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1989), alleging that defendants

South Broward Hospital District D/B/A Memorial Healthcare System v. Joseph Kaplan and Donald Solomon

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 11, 2024 | Docket: 69151383

Published

entity, it permits suit against the district. See § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (2022). Sovereign immunity is

DAVID W. RACE v. WILLIAM J. MITCHELL

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2023 | Docket: 66970046

Published

Plaintiff sued Defendant in Florida under section 934.10, Florida Statutes (2019), which creates a civil

Skydive Space Center, Inc. v. Pohjolainen

275 So. 3d 825

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2019 | Docket: 64719893

Published

disclosure of intercepted oral communications); § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing a cause of action

Skydive Space Center, Inc. v. Pohjolainen

275 So. 3d 825

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2019 | Docket: 64719894

Published

disclosure of intercepted oral communications); § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing a cause of action

State v. Caraballo

198 So. 3d 819, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3523, 2016 WL 886538

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2016 | Docket: 3044946

Published

during a meeting with his employer violated section 934.10. The statements were made in the employer’s

Stalley v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.

296 F.R.D. 670, 2013 WL 6184065, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167156

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 25, 2013 | Docket: 66051742

Published

injunctive relief pursuant to Florida Statute § 934.10(1)(a). (Doc. #208 at 13). However, Count I states

Perdue v. State

78 So. 3d 712, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1372, 2012 WL 310878

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2012 | Docket: 2515992

Published

provisions of Florida law governing 911 systems); § 934.10(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009) (providing a "complete

Brillinger v. City of Lake Worth

978 So. 2d 265, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5200, 2008 WL 942525

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 2008 | Docket: 64854408

Published

playback system was installed in the PSAP was legal. § 934.10(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000). The instant playback

Miranda v. Chase Manhattan Investment Services, Inc.

706 So. 2d 130, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2227, 1998 WL 88344

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 1998 | Docket: 64779077

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 934.10(3), Fla. Stat. (1993).

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Mar 7, 1997 | Docket: 3256218

Published

occurred and there can be no liability under section 934.10. The exception has two prongs. First, the communication

Hutchins v. Hutchins

508 So. 2d 391, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1069, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7694

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1987 | Docket: 64627782

Published

communication under the wiretapping statute (section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1985)). Accordingly, the

Lomelo v. Schultz

422 So. 2d 1050, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22154

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 1982 | Docket: 64593765

Published

without stating the grounds for the dismissal. Section 934.10, Florida Statutes, states: Any person whose

Burgess v. Burgess

417 So. 2d 1173, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20889

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 1982 | Docket: 64591675

Published

cause of action for civil damages brought under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979), as being precluded

Brown v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc.

94 F.R.D. 159, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 380, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12107

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1982 | Docket: 66080366

Published

intercepts ... such communications ...” Fla.Stat. § 934.10. The term “person” is defined in Fla.Stat. § 934

Roberts v. Jardine

366 So. 2d 124, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13932

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 1979 | Docket: 64567947

Published

damages from petitioner. She based her action on Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1977), which authorizes

Roberts v. Jardine

366 So. 2d 124, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13932

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 1979 | Docket: 64567947

Published

damages from petitioner. She based her action on Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1977), which authorizes