Cases from cite.case.law:

CHAMBERS, v. STATE, 200 So. 3d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (2015); Perez v. State, 453 So.2d 173, 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). . . .

GARDNER, v. STATE, 194 So. 3d 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . • See § 914.04,Stat. (2012). . . .

BRETHERICK, v. STATE, 170 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 2015)

. . . Toogood, 349 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (involving statutory transactional immunity under, section 914.04 . . .

JOSEPH, v. STATE, 103 So. 3d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . trial whether a defendant was immune from prosecution under the investigative subpoena statute—section 914.04 . . .

STATE v. BELIDOR,, 96 So. 3d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . The order departs from the essential requirements of section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2012), which subjects . . . Section 914.04 also squarely addresses and eliminates the respondent’s vaguely-referenced concerns regarding . . .

JONES, v. STATE, 54 So. 3d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . While section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2010) (providing immunity for one served with a subpoena), does . . . State, 460 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming conviction and explaining that section 914.04 is designed . . . The Fountaine court explained as follows: We hold that the self-executing feature of section 914.04 discussed . . . state agrees to cure the constitutional violation with a grant of use immunity pursuant to section 914.04 . . .

DENNIS, v. STATE, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010)

. . . evidentiary hearing to determine if the transactional immunity or use immunity provisions of section 914.04 . . .

STATE v. MITRANI R., 19 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . despite being advised that they would be given use and derivative use immunity as provided in section 914.04 . . . The Florida immunity statute, section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2008), provides, in pertinent part: No . . . Section 914.04 generally prohibits the use of such testimony in any criminal investigation or proceeding . . . contradictory statement made in the most recent proceeding was made under a grant of immunity under section 914.04 . . . We conclude that the use and derivative use immunity granted by section 914.04 satisfies any self-incrimination . . .

GOVONI, v. STATE, 17 So. 3d 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Too-good, 349 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (involving statutory transactional immunity under section 914.04 . . .

SCHALLER, v. NATIONAL ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 496 F. Supp. 2d 887 (S.D. Ohio 2007)

. . . The Plaintiffs seek costs and fees in the amount of $914.04. Doc. #25 at 1. . . .

McKAY, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, f k a SCI d b a Dr., 876 So. 2d 666 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 914.04 as set forth herein. . . . in the agreement the language providing that testimony under the agreement was pursuant to section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04 grants use and derivative use immunity to a witness compelled by subpoena to testify in . . . McKay argued that Section 914.04 does not apply to testimony given in a civil proceeding and that the . . . The court seemed to hold that Section 914.04 is the sole means by which the state can grant immunity. . . .

GRANT, v. STATE, 832 So. 2d 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Despite the OSP’s assertion that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2001), conferred use and derivative . . . Grant responded by asserting that section 914.04 does not give the OSP the authority to confer immunity . . . In Florida, the statute dealing with immunity from criminal prosecution is section 914.04. . . . We conclude that the trial court correctly held that the immunity provisions of section 914.04 apply . . . The purpose of section 914.04 is to aid the State in the prosecution of crimes. See Fountaine v. . . .

ZILE, v. STATE, 710 So. 2d 729 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Florida Statutes § 914.04 previously provided for transactional immunity, but in" 1982 the legislature . . .

COSTELLO, v. FENNELLY,, 681 So. 2d 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1995), she was accorded use and derivative use immunity . . . Section 914.04 immunity from use and derivative use “is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against . . . This means that if Costello were to give a statement under section 914.04, another jurisdiction seeking . . . The trial court correctly determined that the section 914.04 grant of immunity subsumed Costello’s privilege . . .

STATE v. POLNAC,, 665 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . DBR investigator could not grant immunity from criminal prosecution under Florida Statute, Section 914.04 . . . The Florida statute dealing with immunity from criminal prosecution is Florida Statutes, Section 914.04 . . . See § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . The courts have consistently adhered to the principle that immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04 . . . instances, such as the instant case, where claims of immunity do not come under the confines of Section 914.04 . . .

RANDALL, v. GUENTHER,, 650 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . and October 13, 1994, purporting to confer upon Randall use and derivative use immunity under section 914.04 . . . As pertinent, section 914.04 provides: No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena . . . evidence so produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. § 914.04 . . . The case law addressing section 914.04 consistently has construed the statute strictly, making it clear . . . the state is not foreclosed from conferring immunity on Randall pursuant to the provisions of section 914.04 . . .

MEEK, v. STATE, 636 So. 2d 543 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) provided: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain . . . See § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . triggers automatic immunity from prosecution for the offense concerning which he testified under section 914.04 . . .

SARRAIN, v. STATE, 632 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . See § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1993); § 837.021, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

INTELLIGENCE GROUP, INCORPORATED, d b a v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING,, 610 So. 2d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . On August 9, 1989, Oglesby was granted immunity from prosecution under section 914.04, Florida Statutes . . . The holding in Lurie was based on section 914.04’s predecessor, section 932.29 Florida Statutes (1967 . . . grant of immunity shall be used against the witness “upon any criminal investigation or proceeding.” § 914.04 . . . Williams, 487 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA1986) (amended statute section 914.04 confers no authority on a . . .

MEEK, v. STATE, 605 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Procedure 3.850, in which appellant contended, for the first time, that upon the authority of section 914.04 . . . retroactively as it constituted a fundamental constitutional change of law by concluding that section 914.04 . . . also reject the trial court’s argument, based upon Glenn, that since the legislature amended section 914.04 . . . acknowledged in a footnote, but still did not take into account, the fact that the legislature amended section 914.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. TURNER, 936 F.2d 221 (6th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 914.04 (1989). . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. TIMMONS, 44 Fla. Supp. 2d 120 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . Under the law promulgated by the Florida legislature, Florida Statute 914.04, a prosecution for prejury . . .

MEEK, v. STATE, 566 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 914.04, the immunity statute controlling, provided: No person, having been duly served with a . . . In 1980, section 914.04 provided for both transactional and use immunity. . . .

V. VALDEZ, v. STATE, 555 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . the ASA informed her that she was entitled to limited immunity for her testimony by virtue of Section 914.04 . . . that the subpoena and grant of immunity were properly issued and that under the provisions of Section 914.04 . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. MONSERRATE, 39 Fla. Supp. 2d 178 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . Florida shall confer use and derivative use immunity on Angel Fernandez pursuant to Florida Statute 914.04 . . .

DeBOCK, v. STATE, 512 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1987)

. . . and refused to answer questions at a deposition, contending that the immunity flowing from section 914.04 . . . The district court reasoned that section 914.04 immunizes a witness solely from criminal prosecution . . . dealt with two attorneys who had been granted immunity from criminal prosection pursuant to section 914.04 . . . The 1975 version of section 914.04 at issue in Ciravolo provided for the broad grant of transactional . . . Once immunity was granted to DeBock pursuant to section 914.04, he was fully protected from having his . . .

JOHNSTON, v. STATE, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)

. . . Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to enforce section 914.04, Florida . . . Section 914.04 provides that neither testimony given pursuant to a subpoena nor evidence procured through . . . personally, and thus, once he was compelled, through his attorneys, to produce the letters, section 914.04 . . . Accordingly, the denial of the motion to enforce section 914.04 was correct. . . .

STATE v. MOORE T., 486 So. 2d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Ap-pellees were granted use immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), by virtue of . . .

STATE v. WELLINGTON PRECIOUS METALS, INC. In, 487 So. 2d 326 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Florida’s use immunity statute, sections 914.04 and 914.05, Florida Statutes (1985), is similar to 18 . . .

STATE v. WILLIAMS,, 487 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Before its amendment in 1982, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, contained a provision, stating: “[N]o . . . As amended, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), provides: No person who has been duly served with . . .

BAKER, v. STATE, 480 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . . § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1983); State v. Fowler, 447 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Fowler v. . . . language which permits prosecution for perjury when one lies while giving an immunized statement. § 914.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. HAMPTON,, 775 F.2d 1479 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . See § 914.04, Florida Statutes. This testimony was stenographically recorded and later transcribed. . . .

STATE v. T. MOORMAN,, 475 So. 2d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . several grounds urged in support of the motion was the immunity shield conferred upon him by section 914.04 . . . Thus, in the absence of legislative action altering the inescapable effect of section 914.04, the supreme . . . The lower court was bound to accord full obedience to the immunity granted Moorman by section 914.04, . . . The legislature during its 1985 session enacted an amendment to section 914.04, with an effective date . . . We cannot, however, constitutionally give a retroactive effect to section 914.04 as it has been amended . . .

PUTNAL, v. STATE, 468 So. 2d 444 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and (2) said statements were protected by the “use immunity” guaranteed by section 914.04 . . . As noted, section 914.04, Florida Statutes, provides that whenever one testifies pursuant to a section . . . Appellant contends that since he testified in response to a State subpoena, under section 914.04, Florida . . .

STATE v. F. RENDINA,, 467 So. 2d 734 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . DeBock contended that the immunization flowing from section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), was insufficient . . . criminal proceeding, the state has clothed DeBock with use and derivative use immunity via section 914.04 . . . It is also clear that section 914.04 provides no immunity from disciplinary proceedings instituted by . . . witness in DeBock’s position must apply therefor because, when the statutory immunity provided by section 914.04 . . .

STATE v. MONTGOMERY,, 467 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Schell, 222 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . See 18 U.S.C.A. § 6002 (Supp.1984); § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . violation by means of a grant of use immunity to the appropriate defense witness pursuant to section 914.04 . . . point of presenting the state with the choice of either granting the witness use immunity under section 914.04 . . . of acquittal in this case or to grant Downey, the defense witness, use immunity pursuant to section 914.04 . . .

STATE v. L. FOWLER,, 466 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1985)

. . . Whether this language should also be a part of section 914.04 is a matter only the legislature may address . . . Doe has been extant since 1980 and section 914.04 has been revised since 1981, but the proviso is still . . . Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, . . .

FOUNTAINE, v. STATE, 460 So. 2d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . 1980), we turn our attention to the text of Florida’s use immunity statute, which is found in section 914.04 . . . The court held that section 914.04 was self-executing and automatically grants use immunity to one who . . . the ground of self-incrimination, because he would automatically receive use immunity under section 914.04 . . . We hold that the self-executing feature of section 914.04 discussed in Jenny is limited to eases where . . .

STATE v. RICHARDS, 457 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . compel Richards and Wilcher, persons who indisputably had been given use immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . .

KAPLAN, v. STATE, 451 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . State, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984), the Supreme Court of Florida reminds us (referring to F.S. 914.04) . . .

P. HOPE, v. STATE, 449 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Appellant then was specifically extended the immunity afforded by section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983 . . . In this case, appellant was granted the complete immunity available to a witness under section 914.04 . . . 222 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) construed the immunity granted by the predecessor statute to section 914.04 . . . to be limited to state compelled witnesses’ testimony, section 914.04 is not limited to testimony compelled . . .

MENUT, v. STATE, 446 So. 2d 718 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Appellant argues first that the immunity defined in Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), is . . .

W. JENNY, v. STATE, 447 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1984)

. . . The Fourth District correctly held that section-914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), did not confer transactional . . . Section 914.04 is not self-executing upon the issuance of a subpoena and nonprotest-ing compliance with . . . The district court reversed, finding that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) did not confer immunity . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain . . . Section 914.04 was amended in 1982 to delete the provision regarding transactional immunity. . . .

FOWLER, v. STATE, 447 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . her testimony and cooperation in the investigation, Fowler was granted immunity pursuant to section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04 provides that when a witness is compelled to testify under a grant of immunity, “no testimony . . .

STATE v. HARRISON, a k a Sr., 442 So. 2d 389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . grant the state’s petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order which held that section 914.04 . . . We adopt the rationale of our sister court and “hold that section 914.04 is constitutional and affords . . .

STATE v. McSWAIN,, 440 So. 2d 502 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . which denied the state’s motion to compel testimony after an offer of immunity pursuant to section 914.04 . . . Respondent argued to the trial court that “use immunity,” provided by section 914.04, was not sufficient . . . Section 914.04 refers to “testimony so given or evidence so produced.” . . . In 1973, when Popper was decided, section 914.04 provided for both “transactional immunity” and “use . . . By chapter 82-393, Laws of Florida (1982), the Florida legislature amended section 914.04 to delete “ . . .

NOVO, v. E. SCOTT,, 438 So. 2d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Novo that he would extend immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). . . . Here, unlike Compton, 914.04 contains the additional language “any investigation”. . . . Second; 914.04 must be considered in light of basic rules of statutory construction. . . . We adopt the reasoning and analysis of the trial judge and hold that section 914.04 is constitutional . . . the language extending use immunity is not new but was contained in the previous statutes. cf., F.S., 914.04 . . .

SCHAFFER, v. STATE, 429 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . answer questions in a state investigation after being granted transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . .

In GETTY, 427 So. 2d 380 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Appellant received both transactional and use immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes ( . . . 1979), which says: • 914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on . . . Petitioners vigorously urge that F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A. provides for transactional immunity, and that . . .

FARMER, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE,, 427 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1983)

. . . following questions were certified by subsequent order as being of great importance: 1) Does Section 914.04 . . . The issues upon which this decision rests do not involve either section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979 . . . So.2d 223 (Fla.1973), concerning section 932.29, Florida Statutes (1967), the predecessor of section 914.04 . . .

STATE v. JENNY,, 424 So. 2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . the state attorney and testifying under oath pursuant to subpoena, was entitled, by virtue of Section 914.04 . . . information on the basis of the immunity statute, stated, at page 803: The immunity statute, Section 914.04 . . . turn over the subpoenaed documents, in which event the witness will have immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . . petition for writ of prohibition against the trial court, stated at page 1192: The purpose of Section 914.04 . . . : In order for a witness’ testimony to result in either transactional or use immunity under Section 914.04 . . .

STATE v. HARRIS,, 425 So. 2d 118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . only, a witness who is compelled to testify by court order will by virtue of the immunity statute, § 914.04 . . . This argument may overlook that the witness is not necessarily being called pursuant to Section 914.04 . . .

J. DELISI, Jr. J. Sr. v. SMITH,, 423 So. 2d 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . since the state has advised us that pending these proceedings Delisi, Jr., has been apprehended. . 914.04 . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. ACUNA,, 1 Fla. Supp. 2d 28 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1982)

. . . Appellees are not entitled to immunity under Section 914.04 since they were not compelled to do anything . . .

AGRELLA, v. RIVKIND,, 404 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Jury; (b) that he appeared, was duly sworn, and was given transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . .

STATE v. DANIELS,, 400 So. 2d 498 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . warnings and the deputy was not empowered to require him to answer pursuant to section 27.04 or section 914.04 . . . However, we held that the immunity afforded pursuant to section 914.04 did not preclude prosecution for . . .

TOWN, v. RENO, a, 395 So. 2d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . investigation, proceeding or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state,” see Section 914.04 . . .

MILLER, v. STATE, 389 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979). . . .

McKENNEY, v. STATE, 388 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1980)

. . . . § 914.04- 05, Fla.Stat. (1977). . . .

L. COMPTON v. SOCIETE EUROSUISSE, S. A., 494 F. Supp. 836 (S.D. Fla. 1980)

. . . . § 914.04, goes beyond the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment, and grants full transactional . . .

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD v. WASHINGTON,, 384 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . majority has agreed to certify the question of whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 914.04 . . . .1973), that the immunity attaching under Section 932.29, Florida Statutes (1967), renumbered Section 914.04 . . . great public importance we hereby certify the following question to the Supreme Court: DOES SECTION 914.04 . . . The present statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: No person, having been duly served . . . Powell, 343 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the court held that the immunity granted by Section 914.04 . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. DOE, THE FLORIDA BAR, v. ROE,, 384 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1980)

. . . The Florida Bar, 361 So.2d 121 (Fla.1978), because a state attorney, pursuant to section 914.04, Florida . . . valid and effective because the conditions precedent to the grant of immunity set forth in section 914.04 . . . The Florida Bar, we held that a grant of immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), does . . . Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, . . .

D AMATO, v. J. MORPHONIOS,, 381 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1980)

. . . At issue is the operation of Florida’s immunity statute, section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), based . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975). . . .

COOK, v. STATE, 381 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1980)

. . . . § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1975). . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: No person, having been duly served with a . . . In this instance the defendant could not have been granted immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes . . .

E. ALFORD, v. S. CORNELIUS, Jr., 380 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . another person, and therefore he should have been given immunity from prosecution pursuant to Section 914.04 . . . It is clear that the petitioner would have “use” immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979 . . .

STATE v. J. TSAVARIS,, 382 So. 2d 56 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . first asserted that he was immunized from prosecution for the murder of Sally Burton under Section 914.04 . . . In our view the supreme court held only that Section 914.04 conferred no immunity on Dr. . . . Tsavaris was not immunized from prosecution under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) by reason of . . .

STATE v W. WEIR,, 380 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . entered an order discharging Weir on the ground that he had been immunized from prosecution under Sec. 914.04 . . . concur with the trial judge’s determination that, on these facts, Weir was immunized by the effect of § 914.04 . . .

DANIELS, v. E. KIRKLAND,, 379 So. 2d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . is an original proceeding on suggestion for Writ of Prohibition which raises questions under Section 914.04 . . . to have all charges dismissed on the grounds that he had been granted immunity under Florida Statute 914.04 . . . Section 914.04 is specific: . no person, having been duly served with a subpoena . . ., shall be excused . . .

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a v. MANDELKERN,, 372 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . The Petitioner at that time was afforded full immunity under Florida Statute, Section 914.04 by the State . . . See §§ 2-47 and 2-47.1 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. . § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1977) . . .

STATE v. BRODSKI,, 369 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . were to be given complete immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to the provisions of Section 914.04 . . . However, it is respondents’ position that pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977), they should . . . The Forida Bar, 361 So.2d 121 (Fla.1978), we believe that respondents’ reliance on Section 914.04 is . . . In Ciravolo, at 124, the Supreme Court held “. that a grant of immunity under Section 914.04 does not . . . The effect of Ciravolo is to remove disciplinary immunity from Section 914.04 as it relates to attorneys . . .

YARBROUGH, v. PFEIFFER,, 370 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . of such property thereafter, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to immunity under Section 914.04 . . . obtained through execution of a subpoena on his employee was not entitled to immunity under Section 914.04 . . . Hence, pursuant to Tsavaris, neither our state or federal constitution nor Section 914.04 entitles petitioner . . .

MELANSON, v. T. NELSON,, 366 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . that when he complied with the subpoena duces tecum he gained immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces te-cum, . . . The purpose of Section 914.04 is to aid criminal prosecutions by allowing the state to elect to immunize . . .

STATE v. B. SOTO,, 365 So. 2d 189 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . See: Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977). . . .

STATE D AMATO, v. J. MORPHONIOS,, 358 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . the petition and response is whether an accused can acquire immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04 . . . We hold that the accused cannot acquire statutory immunity for such testimony under Section 914.04, Florida . . . relators filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that they were immunized under Section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), upon which the relators rely for their claim of immunity, provides . . . None of these proceedings are covered by Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), and in none can a witness . . . investigation by the state attorney at the time they were deposed and therefore received immunity under Section 914.04 . . .

G. CIRAVOLO G. v. THE FLORIDA BAR,, 361 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1978)

. . . question: whether or not evidence given by an attorney, following a grant of immunity under Section 914.04 . . . Pursuant to the provisions of Section 914.04, both were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony . . . [Assistant State Attorney] If you’ll examine Statute 914.04, you’ll find that it includes the language . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) provides: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain . . . We now limit Lurie and hold that a grant of immunity under Section 914.04 does not immunize attorneys . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. L. PEARCE,, 356 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1978)

. . . By motion to abate, Pearce says that the provisions of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) grant . . .

GERARDO, v. STATE, 355 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . contended that by complying with the subpoena he had been immunized from prosecution through Section 914.04 . . . the evidence for his prosecution was based, he was, therefore, immunized by the provisions of Section 914.04 . . . Deems, 334 So.2d 829 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), where we stated: “Section 914.04, Fla.Stat., is designed to assure . . . The judgment and sentence are affirmed. . “914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain . . .

STATE v. KITCHEN,, 353 So. 2d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Appellee moved to dismiss the information claiming transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, . . . granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the information based upon transactional immunity under Section 914.04 . . .

KING, v. STATE, 353 So. 2d 180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . The State urges that if King had testified, he would have had immunity under Section 914.04, Florida . . .

L. ANSON, v. FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION,, 354 So. 2d 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Anson, in exchange for immunity from prosecution, penalty or forfeiture pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida . . .

STATE v. PERKINS,, 349 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . The immunity statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) is not self-executing upon the mere issuance . . . turn over the subpoenaed documents, in which event the witness will have immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) provides: “No person, having been duly served with a subpoena . . .

STATE v. TOOGOOD,, 349 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . prosecuted under the indictments here in question, the indictments must be dismissed pursuant to F.S. 914.04 . . . they testified pursuant to subpoena, but rather relate to an independent criminal transaction, F.S. 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975). . 287 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1973). . Id., 287 So.2d at 285. . . .

STATE v. NEWSOME,, 349 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . In order for a witness’ testimony to result in either transactional or use immunity under Section 914.04 . . . Sec. 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1975), provides that a witness may not be prosecuted for any transaction concerning . . .

STATE KEY, v. W. FOGLE,, 347 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . filed a motion to dismiss contending that he had received transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . . Supreme Court interpreted our immunity statute as follows: “Petitioners vigorously urge that F.S. § 914.04 . . .

HANKERSON, v. STATE, 347 So. 2d 744 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . to the robbery sub judice, prior to trial, and he was promptly subpoenaed by the State under Chapter 914.04 . . .

HOLLAND, v. STATE, 345 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . subpoenaed by the State to testify at a deposition pursuant to the Florida Immunity Statute which provides: 914.04 . . . Florida Statute 914.04 (1975). . . .

THOMAS, Jr. v. STATE, 342 So. 2d 978 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . he was immune from prosecution because he had been granted immunity pursuant to the operation of § 914.04 . . . on September 9, 1975, the state filed an amended information naming appellant as a co-defendant. § 914.04 . . .

STATE v. POWELL, 343 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . briefs and oral argument, however, both the state and appellees have argued the applicability of § 914.04 . . . It is substantially the same as the specific immunity statute set forth in § 687.071(6). § 914.04 provides . . .

E. WOODSMALL, v. STATE, 334 So. 2d 320 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . and was brought into the courtroom for identification during the trial he was immunized under Section 914.04 . . . Woodsmall bases his contention on that part of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, which provides that . . . appearance of Woodsmall at Kinsey’s trial resulted in the production of evidence contemplated by Section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, clearly states that the evidence must incriminate the person who is . . .

M. OROSZ, a k a v. STATE, 334 So. 2d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . prosecutorial subpoena which entitled him to immunity pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 914.04 . . . Secondly, Florida Statute 914.04 is not self-operating. As stated in State ex rel Foster v. . . . Florida Statute 914.04 states: “Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions . . .

STATE v. HOUGH, 332 So. 2d 98 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . Nevertheless, the Court does not believe that immunity attaches under Florida Statute § 914.04 for any . . . Affirmed. . “914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony . . .

LAWLEY, v. STATE, 330 So. 2d 784 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . Also, under § 914.04, Florida Statutes, the state can grant immunity to compel a witness to give testimony . . .

HILL, v. STATE, 330 So. 2d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . trial, the state subpoenaed and interrogated McDonald about the incident in question pursuant to § 914.04 . . .

STATE v. DEEMS,, 334 So. 2d 829 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . as an individual and having so complied with the subpoena, he was immunized from prosecution under § 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Fla.Stat., is designed to assure an individual’s constitution- The subpoena duces tecum . . . corporate records called for in the subpoena was not thereby immunized from said prosecution, by § 914.04 . . .

McDONALD, v. STATE, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . subpoena returnable instanter and advised the court that it was thereby immunizing appellant pursuant to § 914.04 . . . In addition, the state through an investigative subpoena under § 914.04, F.S.1973, immunized appellant . . . Popper, Fla.1973, 287 So.2d 282, an individual who gives coerced testimony pursuant to § 914.04, F.S.1973 . . . other hand the state’s offer of immunity was sufficient to completely immunize the witness under § 914.04 . . .

LEE, v. STATE, 318 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . S. 914.04, wherein a person who testifies concerning matters that would incriminate him while under subpoena . . .

STATE By OFFICE OF STATE ATTORNEY FOR TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, v. SIEVERT STATE By OFFICE OF STATE ATTORNEY FOR TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, v. SIEVERT,, 312 So. 2d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 914.04. . . .

STATE v. YATMAN, a k a, 320 So. 2d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . not simply with the taking of a statement but more importantly with the waiver of immunity statute, § 914.04 . . .

STATE v. MONTGOMERY,, 310 So. 2d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . and obstructing civil process, on the ground that the defendant was immune from prosecution under § 914.04 . . . the motion to dismiss was that this testimony rendered the defendant immune from prosecution under § 914.04 . . . evidence in support of the motion, we would be inclined to agree with the State’s contention that § 914.04 . . .

S. SALEM, v. STATE, 310 So. 2d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 914.04, F.S.A. Appellant relies upon the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Lurie v. . . . the appellant testified before the Grand Jury, he was immunized under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 914.04 . . .