Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 934.01 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 934.01 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 934.01

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 934
SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS; SURVEILLANCE
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 934.01
934.01 Legislative findings.On the basis of its own investigations and of published studies, the Legislature makes the following findings:
(1) Wire communications are normally conducted through the use of facilities which form part of an intrastate network. The same facilities are used for interstate and intrastate communications.
(2) In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, and to prevent the obstruction of intrastate commerce, it is necessary for the Legislature to define the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized and to prohibit any unauthorized interception of such communications and the use of the contents thereof in evidence in courts and administrative proceedings.
(3) Organized criminals make extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission is an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the administration of justice.
(4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court. Interception of wire and oral communications should further be limited to certain major types of offenses and specific categories of crime with assurance that the interception is justified and that the information obtained thereby will not be misused.
History.s. 1, ch. 69-17.

F.S. 934.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.01 on Casetext

Amendments to 934.01


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 934.01
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 934.01.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CRESPO, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. a, 689 F. App'x 944 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 934.01. . . .

FF COSMETICS FL INC. a FL a LLC, a f k a FL a v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, a, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Stat. 934.01 et seq. . Cf. . . .

B. STALLELY, In v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., 602 F. App'x 732 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 934.01. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. . . .

E. ABDO, v. STATE, 144 So. 3d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 934.01(2). . . .

B. STALLEY, v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . 22, 2011, against ADS for alleged violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act, section 934.01 . . . Stat. §§ 934.01 et seq. . . .

B. STALLEY, v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., 296 F.R.D. 670 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 934.01 et seq. (Doc. #2). . . . Stat. §§ 934.01 et seq. . . . Stat. §§ 934.01 et seq., Stalley and Hallback further state that, “To the extent ADS has records that . . . Stat. § 934.01 et seq. . . .

PERDUE, v. STATE, 78 So. 3d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . He argued that the recording violated section 934.01(4), Florida Statutes (2009), and his right to privacy . . .

JENKINS, v. STATE, 978 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2008)

. . . Cf, § 934.01(2), Fla. . . .

O. HORNING- KEATING, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,, 969 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Keating also argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on her section 934.01 claim . . . See § 934.01 et seq., Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . .

DELGADO, v. STATE, 948 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2006)

. . . See § 934.01, Fla. Stat. (2002) (making legislative findings); § 934.02(20), Fla. . . .

JENKINS, v. STATE, 924 So. 2d 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See also § 934.01(2); Davis v. . . .

STATE v. OTTE,, 887 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 934.01(3), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

COHEN BROTHERS, LLC. LLC, v. ME CORP. S. A., 872 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . prejudice, of a complaint alleging violations of Florida’s Security of Communications Act, section 934.01 . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 636 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . . § 934.01, Fla.Stat. (1991); Copeland. . . .

MOZO, v. STATE, 632 So. 2d 623 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . In fact, the historical note to section 934.01 states: “With one exception the state law follows closely . . . the Federal act." 23A Fla.Stat.Ann. 292 (1985) (Historical Note to § 934.01). . . . .

In COURTLAND ESTATES CORPORATION,, 144 B.R. 5 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1992)

. . . were charged to and paid by the Bank: 1) Permitting Violations-$7,554.54; 2) Workout Negotiations-$18,-934.01 . . .

ROYAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, d b a v. JEFFERSON- PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . . §§ 934.01-934.43 (West Supp. 1990). . . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.01 (West 1985). . The exception noted is not relevant to our discussion. . . . .

C. PAYNE, v. STATE, 562 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . .” § 934.01(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

STATE v. JONES,, 562 So. 2d 740 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . See § 934.01, Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

UNITED STATES v. MALEKZADEH, UNITED STATES v. SHAYANFAR, a k a, 855 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 934.01 et seq., demonstrates that the Florida requirements are no stricter than those imposed under . . .

H. DAVIS, v. STATE SUMLIN, v. STATE DAVIS, v. STATE, 529 So. 2d 732 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . For example, section 934.01(2), Florida Statutes (1985), provides: In order to protect effectively the . . .

A. WELKER, v. STATE, 504 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . The court also discussed § 934.01(4), Florida Statutes, which serves to further implement the quoted . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. MCKINNEY,, 19 Fla. Supp. 2d 87 (Polk Cty. Ct. 1986)

. . . To quote from Florida Statute 934.01(2): “In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. BELOSH STATE OF FLORIDA v. CROMER, 13 Fla. Supp. 2d 34 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . WIRETAPS Section 934.01 contains legislative findings to-wit: (3) Organized criminals make extensive . . . Section 934.01 et seq., were enacted as different means to fight the same menace: organized crime. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DOMME, Jr., 753 F.2d 950 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 934.01 et seq. (West 1973 & 1974-83 Supp.). . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. BASCARO, M. III, J. W. UNITED STATES v. W. JAMES,, 742 F.2d 1335 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . .; FSA §§ 934.01 et seq. . . .

PALMER, v. STATE, 448 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . language of Article I, Section VII of the 1968 Florida Constitution, in effect at that time, and section 934.01 . . .

INCIARRANO, v. STATE, 447 So. 2d 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . wire and oral communications ...” and (2) “[t]o safeguard the privacy of innocent per-sons_” Section 934.01 . . .

E. COPELAND, III, v. STATE, 435 So. 2d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . See § 934.01(2). . . . See §§ 934.01, et seq., Fla.Stat. (1981). . . .

UNITED STATES v. HARVEY,, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1982)

. . . . § 934.01, et seq., the Florida State analogue to Title III. . . .

D. BURGESS, v. F. BURGESS,, 417 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 934.01(2) and (4). . . .

A. GARDNER, v. BRADENTON HERALD, INC. DOE, v. BRADENTON HERALD, INC., 413 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1982)

. . . The law of Florida recognizes this right to privacy in section 934.01, Florida Statutes (1977), which . . . United States, the legislature of Florida by section 934.01, Florida Statutes (1977), safeguarded the . . . If section 934.01, Florida Statutes (1977), quoted above, was not sufficient to tip the scales in favor . . .

UNITED STATES v. CAGGIANO a k a, 667 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1982)

. . . . § 934.01 et seq. (1975). . . .

MORNINGSTAR, v. STATE, 405 So. 2d 778 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Chapter 934, F.S., enacted as Chapter 69 — 17 at the 1969 legislative session and particularly Section 934.01 . . .

ZUPPARDI, v. STATE, 367 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1978)

. . . . § 934.01(3), Fla.Stat. (1975). . § 934.01(2), Fla.Stat. (1975). . 272 So.2d at 494. . . .

STATE v. E. BARNETT,, 354 So. 2d 422 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 934.01-10, Florida Statutes (1976). . Section 934.09(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1976). . . . .

G. HORN, v. STATE, 298 So. 2d 194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . oral communication; ***** * “shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, * * * ”, Florida Statute 934.01 . . . The historical note following 934.01 F. . . .

E. WRIGHT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 495 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . interception of wire communications, in compliance with state and federal statutes, F.S.A., Section 934.01 . . .

H. MARKHAM, v. S. MARKHAM,, 272 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1973)

. . . Court, relying principally on constitutional guarantees of the right to privacy and Florida Statutes § 934.01 . . .

C. TOLLETT, v. STATE, 272 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1973)

. . . The quoted language in Section 934.01(4) does not abrogate the rule expressed in Walker v. . . .

B. ALEA, v. STATE, 265 So. 2d 96 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . Chapter 934, F.S., enacted as Chapter 69-17 at the 1969 legislative session and particularly Section 934.01 . . . court of competent jurisdiction . . . ’ (Emphasis added.) * * * * * “The quoted language in Section 934.01 . . .

S. MARKHAM, v. H. MARKHAM,, 265 So. 2d 59 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . that this court and the trial court lack the authority to engraft an exception upon the statute (Sec. 934.01 . . . the Federal Omnibus Crime Bill of 1968 or the Florida Security of Communications Act of 1969, Sec. 934.01 . . . Amplifying the foregoing constitutional guarantee is Florida Statute 934.01(4), F. . . .

STATE v. BLACKBURN,, 35 Fla. Supp. 202 (Seminole Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)

. . . fact — That the controlling statutes are contained in chapter 934, Florida Statutes, specifically §§934.01 . . .

WANDTKE v. ANDERSON, 74 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1934)

. . . as .Anderson & Christofani, filed their libel in rem against the Mary E for repairs in the sum of $934.01 . . .