Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 934.23 (2025)

Required disclosure of customer communications or records.

✓ 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

934.23 Required disclosure of customer communications or records.—

(1) An investigative or law enforcement officer may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for 180 days or less only pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge of a court of competent jurisdiction. As used in this section, the term “a court of competent jurisdiction” means a court that has jurisdiction over the investigation or that is otherwise authorized by law. An investigative or law enforcement officer may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than 180 days by the means available under subsection (2).

(2) An investigative or law enforcement officer may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this subsection is made applicable by subsection (3):

(a) Without required notice to the subscriber or customer if the investigative or law enforcement officer obtains a warrant issued by the judge of a court of competent jurisdiction; or

(b) With prior notice, or with delayed notice pursuant to s. 934.25, from the investigative or law enforcement officer to the subscriber or customer if the investigative or law enforcement officer:

1. Uses a subpoena; or

2. Obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (5).

(3) Subsection (2) is applicable with respect to any electronic communication that is held or maintained on a remote computing service:

(a) On behalf of a subscriber or customer of such service and received by means of electronic transmission from, or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from, a subscriber or customer of such service.

(b) Solely for the purposes of providing storage or computer processing services to a subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communication for purposes of providing any service other than storage or computer processing.

(4)(a) An investigative or law enforcement officer may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer of such service, not including the contents of a communication, only when the investigative or law enforcement officer:

1. Obtains a warrant issued by the judge of a court of competent jurisdiction;

2. Obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (5);

3. Has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or

4. Seeks information under paragraph (b).

(b) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to an investigative or law enforcement officer the name; address; local and long-distance telephone connection records, or records of session times or durations; length of service, including the starting date of service; types of services used; telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and means and source of payment, including any credit card or bank account number of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses a subpoena or obtains such information in the manner specified in paragraph (a) for obtaining information under that paragraph.

(c) An investigative or law enforcement officer who receives records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.

(5) A court order for disclosure under subsection (2), subsection (3), or subsection (4) shall issue only if the investigative or law enforcement officer offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe the contents of a wire or electronic communication or the records of other information sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash or modify such order if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.

(6) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, or certification under ss. 934.21-934.28.

(7)(a) A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of an investigative or law enforcement officer, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process.

(b) Records referred to in paragraph (a) shall be retained for a period of 90 days, which shall be extended for an additional 90 days upon a renewed request by an investigative or law enforcement officer.

(8) A provider of electronic communication service, a remote computing service, or any other person who furnished assistance pursuant to this section shall be held harmless from any claim and civil liability resulting from the disclosure of information pursuant to this section and shall be reasonably compensated for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such assistance.

History.—s. 9, ch. 88-184; s. 10, ch. 89-269; s. 13, ch. 2000-369; s. 8, ch. 2002-72; s. 2, ch. 2003-71.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 2004–2018 · leading case: Shawn Alvin Tracey v. State of Florida, 152 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shawn Alvin Tracey v. State of Florida, 152 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2014). · cites it 10× “The district court below concluded: - 10 - Similarly, under Florida law, the exclusionary rule is not a remedy for violations of section 934.23. Section 934.28, Florida Statutes (2009) provides: The remedies and sanctions described in ss.”

Anthony Ferrari v. State of Florida, 260 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). · cites it 10× “Ferrari unsuccessfully moved to suppress the subpoenaed historical CSLI data.”

Mitchell v. State, 25 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). · cites it 12× “1 Initially, law enforcement obtained the records through an investigative subpoena.”

Tracey v. State, 69 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). · cites it 10× “§ 2703 (c), and its state counterpart, section 934.23, Florida Statutes (2009). 25 So.”

Rafael Andres v. State of Florida, 254 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2018). · cites it 2× “In order to obtain an order for a pen register or trap and trace, the State need only present "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe the contents of a wire or electronic communication or the records of other information sought are…”

Figueroa v. State, 870 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · cites it 4× “22, Florida Statutes (2000), generally prohibits a person or entity who provides an electronic communication service or remote computing service to the public from knowingly divulging the contents of a communication, except under certain limited described conditions, one of…”

State v. Gary Lunsford (075691), 141 A.3d 270 (N.J. 2016). “1984); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.23 (4) (2016); Figueroa v.”

Johnson v. State, 110 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). · cites it 3× “We affirm on all issues raised by the defendant, but write to address his arguments that the trial court erred by: 1) admitting evidence of a collateral robbery at the defendant’s trial, 2) refusing to sever the three robberies for which the defendant was tried, and 3) admitting…”

State of Florida v. Quinton Redell Sylvestre, 254 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “See §§ 934.23, .42, Fla. Stat. (2012). We affirm the circuit court’s ruling that the CSLI Order was supported by probable cause.”

State v. Oliveras, 65 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). · cites it 8× “Specifically, he argued that failure to comply with the requirements of section 934.23, Florida Statutes (2009), rendered the information used in the affidavit “defective” and the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant inadmissible.”

— 934.23(1) — 2 cases

Anthony Ferrari v. State of Florida, 260 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “Ferrari unsuccessfully moved to suppress the subpoenaed historical CSLI data.”

State v. Oliveras, 65 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). “Specifically, he argued that failure to comply with the requirements of section 934.23, Florida Statutes (2009), rendered the information used in the affidavit “defective” and the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant inadmissible.”

— 934.23(4) — 1 case

Figueroa v. State, 870 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “22, Florida Statutes (2000), generally prohibits a person or entity who provides an electronic communication service or remote computing service to the public from knowingly divulging the contents of a communication, except under certain limited described conditions, one of…”

— 934.23(4)(a) — 3 cases

Shawn Alvin Tracey v. State of Florida, 152 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2014). “The district court below concluded: - 10 - Similarly, under Florida law, the exclusionary rule is not a remedy for violations of section 934.23. Section 934.28, Florida Statutes (2009) provides: The remedies and sanctions described in ss.”

Mitchell v. State, 25 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “1 Initially, law enforcement obtained the records through an investigative subpoena.”

Tracey v. State, 69 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “§ 2703 (c), and its state counterpart, section 934.23, Florida Statutes (2009). 25 So.”

— 934.23(4)(b) — 1 case

Anthony Ferrari v. State of Florida, 260 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “Ferrari unsuccessfully moved to suppress the subpoenaed historical CSLI data.”

— 934.23(5) — 4 cases

Rafael Andres v. State of Florida, 254 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2018). “In order to obtain an order for a pen register or trap and trace, the State need only present "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe the contents of a wire or electronic communication or the records of other information sought are…”

Tracey v. State, 69 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “§ 2703 (c), and its state counterpart, section 934.23, Florida Statutes (2009). 25 So.”

Mitchell v. State, 25 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “1 Initially, law enforcement obtained the records through an investigative subpoena.”

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.