Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 934.03 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 934.03 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 934.03

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. 934.03
934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:
(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:
1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;
(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or
(e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).

(2)(a)1. It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his or her employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his or her service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
2. Notwithstanding any other law, a provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person, may provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to a person authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications if such provider, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person, has been provided with:
a. A court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge; or
b. A certification in writing by a person specified in s. 934.09(7) that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required.
3. A provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person may not disclose the existence of any interception or the device used to accomplish the interception with respect to which the person has been furnished an order under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notice to the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure renders such person liable for the civil damages provided under s. 934.10, and such person may be prosecuted under s. 934.43. An action may not be brought against any provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09.
(b) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his or her employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. chapter 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.
(c) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.
(d) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.
(e) It is unlawful to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing any criminal act.
(f) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an employee of a telephone company to intercept a wire communication for the sole purpose of tracing the origin of such communication when the interception is requested by the recipient of the communication and the recipient alleges that the communication is obscene, harassing, or threatening in nature. The individual conducting the interception shall notify local police authorities within 48 hours after the time of the interception.
(g) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for an employee of:
1. An ambulance service licensed pursuant to s. 401.25, a fire station employing firefighters as defined by s. 633.102, a public utility, a law enforcement agency as defined by s. 934.02(10), or any other entity with published emergency telephone numbers;
2. An agency operating an emergency telephone number “911” system established pursuant to s. 365.171; or
3. The central abuse hotline operated under s. 39.101

to intercept and record incoming wire communications; however, such employee may intercept and record incoming wire communications on designated “911” telephone numbers and published nonemergency telephone numbers staffed by trained dispatchers at public safety answering points only. It is also lawful for such employee to intercept and record outgoing wire communications to the numbers from which such incoming wire communications were placed when necessary to obtain information required to provide the emergency services being requested. For the purpose of this paragraph, the term “public utility” has the same meaning as provided in s. 366.02 and includes a person, partnership, association, or corporation now or hereafter owning or operating equipment or facilities in the state for conveying or transmitting messages or communications by telephone or telegraph to the public for compensation.

(h) It shall not be unlawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for any person:
1. To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.
2. To intercept any radio communication which is transmitted:
a. By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
b. By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including any police or fire communications system, readily accessible to the general public;
c. By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
d. By any marine or aeronautical communications system.
3. To engage in any conduct which:
a. Is prohibited by s. 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
b. Is excepted from the application of s. 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by s. 705(b) of that act.
4. To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station of consumer electronic equipment to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference.
5. To intercept, if such person is another user of the same frequency, any radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system.
6. To intercept a satellite transmission that is not scrambled or encrypted and that is transmitted:
a. To a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or
b. As an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls, when such interception is not for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.
7. To intercept and privately view a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or to intercept a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted, if such interception is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain.
(i) It shall not be unlawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09:
1. To use a pen register or a trap and trace device as authorized under ss. 934.31-934.34 or under federal law; or
2. For a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of such service.
(j) It is not unlawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser which are transmitted to, through, or from a protected computer if:
1. The owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the communications of the computer trespasser;
2. The person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
3. The person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the communications of the computer trespasser will be relevant to the investigation; and
4. The interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to, through, or from the computer trespasser.
(k) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a child under 18 years of age to intercept and record an oral communication if the child is a party to the communication and has reasonable grounds to believe that recording the communication will capture a statement by another party to the communication that the other party intends to commit, is committing, or has committed an unlawful sexual act or an unlawful act of physical force or violence against the child.
(l) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a person who is protected under an active temporary or final injunction for repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence under s. 784.046; stalking under s. 784.0485; domestic violence under s. 741.30; or any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the person to intercept and record a wire, oral, or electronic communication received in violation of such injunction or court order. A recording authorized under this paragraph may be provided to a law enforcement agency, an attorney, or a court for the purpose of evidencing a violation of an injunction or court order if the subject of the injunction or court order prohibiting contact has been served the injunction or is on notice that the conduct is prohibited. A recording authorized under this paragraph may not be otherwise disseminated or shared.
(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.
(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication:
1. As otherwise authorized in paragraph (2)(a) or s. 934.08;
2. With the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;
3. To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or
4. Which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.
(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41.
(b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) and is not for any tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under paragraph (a) was committed is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then:
1. If the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in subparagraph (2)(h)7., the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
2. If the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.s. 3, ch. 69-17; s. 1163, ch. 71-136; ss. 2, 3, ch. 74-249; s. 249, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 78-376; s. 187, ch. 79-164; s. 2, ch. 80-27; s. 1, ch. 87-301; s. 2, ch. 88-184; s. 2, ch. 89-269; s. 1582, ch. 97-102; s. 18, ch. 99-168; ss. 7, 9, ch. 2000-369; s. 2, ch. 2002-72; s. 30, ch. 2010-117; s. 154, ch. 2013-183; s. 1, ch. 2015-82; s. 31, ch. 2021-170; s. 1, ch. 2021-207.

F.S. 934.03 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.03 on Casetext

Amendments to 934.03


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 934.03
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S934.03 1a - EAVESDROPPING - ILLEGAL INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATION - F: T
S934.03 1b - EAVESDROP EQUIP - ILLEGALLY USE DEVICE TO INTERCEPT COMMUNIC - F: T
S934.03 1c - INVADE PRIVACY - ILLEGAL DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATION - F: T
S934.03 1d - DIVULGE EAVESDROP INFO - ILLEGAL USE INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION - F: T
S934.03 1e - OBSTRUCT - DISCLOSE INTERCEPT COMMUNIC OBSTR CRIM INVEST - F: T
S934.03 4b1 - EAVESDROPPING - INTERCEPT WIRE PORTION CELL/CORDLESS PHONE - M: F
S934.03 4b2 - EAVESDROPPING - INTERCEPT RADIO PORTION CELL/CORDLESS PHONE - M: S



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SKYDIVE SPACE CENTER, INC. v. POHJOLAINEN, d b a, 275 So. 3d 825 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 934.03(1), Fla. . . .

SMITH, II, v. STATE, 261 So. 3d 714 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2016), generally prohibits the intentional interception of oral . . .

STATE v. GARCIA,, 252 So. 3d 783 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 934.03, Florida Statutes prohibits the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic . . .

NECE, v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., 292 F. Supp. 3d 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . Liability under Section 934.03(1) requires that the defendant "intercept" a call, but the Florida Statutes . . . A company incurs no liability under Section 934.03(1) if the company intercepts the call through a telephone . . . course of business, the "business extension" provisions except Quicken from liability under Section 934.03 . . . (Doc. 40-1 at 2-3) Under Nece's (erroneous) interpretation of Section 934.03, the unauthorized and undisclosed . . . of Quicken's corporate representatives, who purportedly "confirmed" Quicken's violation of Section 934.03 . . .

CROSBY, v. STATE, 242 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015). ORFINGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. . . .

MCDONOUGH, v. FERNANDEZ- RUNDLE,, 862 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 934.03 (2016). . . . The court did not parse § 934.03, assuming that it applied to the recording. . . . The court held that § 934.03 as applied to McDonough did not violate the First Amendment because it was . . . Stat. § 934.03 (2016). . . . This injury-in-fact is directly traceable to the letter threatening prosecution under § 934.03. . . .

W. TUNDIDOR, v. STATE, 221 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2017)

. . . Section 934.03(2)(c) provides an exception to the general rule prohibiting secret recordings when the . . . direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer” and does not prevent application of section 934.03 . . . 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the court held that a recording may qualify under the exception in section 934.03 . . .

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC. v. CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS,, 214 F. Supp. 3d 808 (N.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . “[F]or an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 the speaker must have an actual subjective . . .

STATE v. CARABALLO,, 198 So. 3d 819 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . The Florida Supreme Court has held that “for an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 . . .

BELLE, v. STATE, 177 So. 3d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . .” § 934.03(l)(a). . . . For purposes of section 934.03, an “oral communication” is defined as “any oral communication uttered . . . Section 934.03(2) enumerates exceptions to the general prohibitions in section 934.03(1). . . . . § 934.03(2)(d). In State v. . . . See § 934.03(l)(a). In McDade II, the victim intentionally and secretly recorded Mr. . . .

PARKERSON, v. STATE, 163 So. 3d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Sunbeam Television Corp., 351 So.2d 723 (Fla.1977), which upheld section 934.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes . . .

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

. . . . § 934.03(1). . . .

R. McDADE, v. STATE, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2010), contains a general prohibition on the interception of any . . . in section 934.03(1). . . . One of these exceptions is for situations in which all parties to the conversation have consented. § 934.03 . . . The State does not argue that any of the exceptions listed in section 934.03(2) are applicable in this . . . not consent to the conversations being recorded, and none of the other exceptions listed in section 934.03 . . .

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

. . . Furthermore, the Tsavaris court focused its attention on whether the exceptions listed in section 934.03 . . .

GAWKER MEDIA, LLC a k a v. BOLLEA, a k a LLC LLC LLC A. J. KFT a k a, 129 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Statutes (2006), and to the offense of interception and disclosure of electronic communications, section 934.03 . . .

B. BRUGMANN, v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . the conversations were recorded without the consent of all of the parties, in violation of section 934.03 . . . parties to the communication consented to the interception or the interception is authorized by law. § 934.03 . . . Section 934.03(2)(c) grants law enforcement or a person acting under the direction of law enforcement . . . Although Chapter 934 was not implicated because section 934.03(2)(c) permits such interceptions by law . . . s Constitution prohibits warrantless interception of private communications notwithstanding section 934.03 . . .

NUNN, v. STATE, 121 So. 3d 566 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . officers to record a communication in furtherance of a criminal investigation if one party consents, § 934.03 . . .

R. McDADE, v. STATE, 114 So. 3d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 934.03(1) generally prohibits the interception of any wire or oral communication. . . . Section 934.03(2) provides a list of “exceptions” to this general prohibition on intercepting communications . . . of the exceptions is if all of the parties to the conversation have consented to the interception. § 934.03 . . . Thus, the plain language of sections 934.03 and 934.06 prohibits the admission of the recordings at issue . . . DCA 2005) (reviewing the trial court’s decision to exclude electronic communications under section 934.03 . . . the preceding section, by shifting the analysis of this statute from the strong language in section 934.03 . . . This broad policy was subject to enumerated exceptions in section 934.03(2). . . . By relying on section 934.02(2) instead of section 934.03, the holding in Inciarrano flips the burden . . . Arguably, the societal-approval test is actually a determination that section 934.03(1) is unconstitutional . . .

BOLLEA, v. CLEM, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03 . . .

SAIRRAS, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 496 F. App'x 28 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 934.03(2)(c), authorizes a law enforcement officer to intercept a communication electronically when . . . Stat. § 934.03(2)(c). IV. Florida law gives courts discretion in responding to jury questions. Fla. . . .

CUOMO, v. STATE, 98 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . the result of an illegal interception and disclosure of oral communications, prohibited by section 934.03 . . . On the subject of section 934.03, the supreme court focused on the statutory phrase requiring the oral . . . , the court applied the same rule, that is, “for an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 . . . there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police car, the supreme court concluded “section 934.03 . . .

Z. FRANCE, v. P. FRANCE,, 90 So. 3d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2009). Ms. . . . See §§ 934.03, .10, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . seem to be necessary that her conduct in North Carolina constituted a criminal violation of section 934.03 . . .

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

. . . The court determined that the recording fell within the exception in section 934.03(2)(g)2, which the . . . when necessary to obtain information required to provide the emergency services being requested,. § 934.03 . . . The plain language of section 934.03(2)(g)2 allows emergency agencies to record only (1) incoming 911 . . . See § 934.03(2)(g)2, Fla. Stat. (1985); see also Fla. S. . . . language of the statute and its legislative history, we reject the State’s contention that section 934.03 . . .

HENTZ, v. STATE, 62 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Both Hentz and the State agree that section 934.03, Florida Statutes, is determinative in the present . . . with a duly authorized criminal investigation; shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).[] § 934.03 . . . Subsection (4) provides that a violation of subsection (1) is a third degree felony. § 934.03(4)(a), . . . party to the intercepted communication or has the prior consent of a party to the communication. § 934.03 . . .

V. MINOTTY, M. D. v. A. BAUDO, M. D. M. D. M. D. V. M. D. v. A. M. D. M. D. M. D., 42 So. 3d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . duty, securities fraud, common law fraud, and illegal interception of communications under section 934.03 . . . Finally, it alleged illegal interception of communications in violation of section 934.03, based upon . . . Section 934.03(l)(a) provides: Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications . . . whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03 . . .

MEAD, v. STATE, 31 So. 3d 881 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . was sufficient to render the victim’s “interception” of the phone communication lawful under section 934.03 . . . The trial court properly admitted the recording into evidence under subsection 934.03(2)(c), Florida . . . Subsection 934.03(1) generally prohibits the intentional interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or . . . However, subsection 934.03(2) provides several exceptions to the general prohibition, including this . . . Rather, we held that the facts in Miller satisfied subsection 934.03(2)(c), without creating any minimum . . .

STATE v. BEAN,, 36 So. 3d 116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Cfi 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2006) (excluding wiretap recordings obtained in violation of chapter 934). . . .

DAWSON, v. STATE, 23 So. 3d 841 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . .”); see also § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

L. POULAKIS, v. ROGERS,, 341 F. App'x 523 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 934.03(l)(a)). . . . .

BRYANT, Jr. v. MOSTERT,, 636 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Pursuant to Florida law, It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement . . . such interception and the purpose of stick interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. § 934.03 . . .

DOMOTOR, v. I. WENNET III, M., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . “Florida State Statutes, 923.03 1A (FT) — Eavesdropping—Illegal Interception of Communication, and 934.03 . . .

KOUNTZE, v. H. KOUNTZE,, 996 So. 2d 246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2002). Neely recorded the call from his office in Nebraska. . . . See §§ 934.03, .10, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . necessary that Neely's conduct in his office in Nebraska constitute a criminal violation of section 934.03 . . .

BRILLINGER, v. CITY OF LAKE WORTH,, 978 So. 2d 265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2000), of the Florida Communications Act prohibits the intentional . . . such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.” § 934.03 . . . Another exception is found in section 934.03(2)(g), Florida Statutes (2000), which authorizes recordings . . . Beyond the exceptions found in section 934.03, the City argues that the Florida Emergency Telephone Act . . .

GRONTKOWSKI, v. STATE, 978 So. 2d 202 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . a “non-custodial” statement and argues that it should have been suppressed as illegal under section 934.03 . . .

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

. . . motion for summary judgment claiming that judgment should be entered in its favor on Keating’s section 934.03 . . . Section 934.03(1)(c) and (d) of the Florida Statutes (1995), sets forth criminal penalties for any person . . . See § 934.03(1)(c) & (d), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

MALONE, v. STATE, 944 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 934.03(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2002); Commerford v. . . .

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

. . . Stat. (2002) (defining pen register); §§ 934.03-.09, Fla. . . .

ATKINS, v. STATE, 930 So. 2d 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . between the victim and her Mend, as admission of the conversation violated the wiretap statute, sections 934.03 . . . Section 934.03 makes intentional interception of telephone conversations unlawful, unless it falls within . . . Section 934.03(2)(c) provides a law enforcement exception: It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an . . . Id. at 935; § 934.03(2)(c), Fla. Stat. . . . The recording of the conversation between A.S. and Doctor violated section 934.03. . . .

IBAR, v. STATE, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006)

. . . See § 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

M. HOLT, v. CHIEF JUDGE OF THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,, 920 So. 2d 814 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . in the dressing room of his modeling studio intercepted oral communications in violation of section 934.03 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. B. CARNEY,, 157 F. App'x 103 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . wire, oral, or electronic communications are intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of sections 934.03 . . .

MIGUT, v. FLYNN,, 131 F. App'x 262 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Ann. § 934.03(l)(a). . . . Ann. § 934.03(l)(a). . . . Ann. § 934.03(4). . . . Aim. § 934.03(l)(a). . . . . See § 934.03(2)(c). . . .

GUILDER, v. STATE, 899 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . unlawfully intercepting and/or endeavoring to intercept an oral communication in violation of section 934.03 . . . all participants, does not constitute an interception of an oral communication prohibited by section 934.03 . . . Accordingly, the entities argued that the then recent amendment to section 934.03(2)(d) impaired its . . . Instead, it criminalized only the willful interception of wire or oral communication. § 934.03(l)(a). . . . "Section 934.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes, was amended in 1974, by Chapter 74-249 (S.459), Laws of Florida . . .

O BRIEN, v. O BRIEN,, 899 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Specifically, we must determine whether the trial court properly concluded that pursuant to section 934.03 . . . trial court found that the electronic communications were illegally obtained in violation of section 934.03 . . . interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation; shall be punished as provided in subsection (4). § 934.03 . . . The clear intent of the Legislature in enacting section 934.03 was to make it illegal for a person to . . . Act, it is illegal and punishable as a crime under the Act to intercept electronic communications. § 934.03 . . .

A. BOEHNER, v. A. McDERMOTT,, 332 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2004)

. . . . § 934.03(l)(c). Plaintiff seeks recovery for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and Fla. . . . Applicability of the Florida Statute Florida Statute § 934.03 provides language substantively identical . . . Based on these events, Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated Florida Stat. § 934.03(c), which prohibits . . . Stat. §§ 934.03, 934.10 because Defendant did not avail himself of the protection of Florida law and . . . Stat. § 934.03(l)(c) provides substantively identical language as 18 U.S.C. § 251 l(l)(c). . . . .

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

. . . whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03 . . . Smith, 641 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla.1994) (“[F]or an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 . . .

GLAZNER, v. GLAZNER,, 347 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 934.03(1) (2001). . . . Ann. §§ 934.03(4)(a) & 775.082 to .083 (2001). . . . Ann. § 934.03 (”[A]ny person who: (a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any . . .

ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BATES, DUNNING ASSOCIATES, INC., 858 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . The Rubino complaint asserted claims for violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes, and common law . . . invasion of privacy alleging that (1) Bates violated section 934.03, Florida Statutes, by intercepting . . . Section 934.03, a penal statute, provides, in pertinent part, that unless all parties to the communication . . . Section 934.10 provides an injured party with civil remedies for violation of section 934.03. . . . . Reliance Insurance remains persuasive despite its construction of a predecessor version of section 934.03 . . .

STATE v. FRATELLO, 835 So. 2d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with ss. 934.03 . . .

STATE v. RUSSELL,, 814 So. 2d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . conversation occurred over the telephone, there would be nothing amiss about it pursuant to section 934.03 . . .

BARTNICKI v. VOPPER, WILLIAMS,, 532 U.S. 514 (U.S. 2001)

. . . . §934.03(1) (Supp. 2001); Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-66.1 (1996); Haw. Rev. . . .

O. HORNING- KEATING, v. STATE, 777 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . United States Constitution by Article I, Sections 12 and 23 of the Florida Constitution, and by sections 934.03 . . .

JATAR, v. LAMALETTO a, 758 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . [collectively “defendants”], violated section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1989), making it unlawful to . . . Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that section 934.03 had not been violated: Lamaletto . . . of a reasonable expectation of privacy, Jatar’s oral communications were not protected under section 934.03 . . . An oral communication is protected under section 934.03 if it satisfies two conditions: “A reasonable . . .

PAREDES, v. STATE, 760 So. 2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 934.02(3), (4); 934.03(1). . . .

BARTNICKI F. Jr. v. W. VOPPER, a k a d b a WILK d b a WGBI W. a k a d b a WILK d b a WGBI, 200 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 1999)

. . . . §§ 934.03, 812.15; Haw. . . .

A. BOEHNER, v. A. McDERMOTT,, 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

. . . . §§ 934.03(l)(c) & 934.10 (West 1996), these statutes are patterned after the federal statute and do . . . . § 934.03(l)(c)— which, in relevant respects, is identical to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(l)(c). . . .

OTERO n k a v. H. OTERO,, 736 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 934.03(l)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. . . . the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communications in violation of this subsection _” § 934.03 . . .

STATE v. SOBEL,, 743 So. 2d 38 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . HARRIS, J., concurring specially: I concur with Judge Dauksch because I find section 934.03(2)(c), Florida . . . Statutes, neither complicated nor ambiguous: It is lawful under- §§ 934.03-934.09 for an investigative . . . I would interpret the language in section 934.03(2)(c), which makes legal and usable in court wiretap . . . telephone conversation taken place under those circumstances, I think the statutory exception of section 934.03 . . . If “purpose,” as used by section 934.03(2)(c) is broadly interpreted, so as to encompass this conversation . . . The pertinent statute is section 934.03(2)(c) and it provides that it is lawful for a law enforcement . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 731 So. 2d 819 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . here was recorded by a law enforcement officer with the consent of the victim as authorized by section 934.03 . . . (2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides: 934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or . . . electronic communications prohibited.- (2)(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative . . .

COMMERFORD, v. STATE, 728 So. 2d 796 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), permits a warrantless interception of oral communications . . . State, 444 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); § 934.03, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

UNITED STATES v. GLINTON,, 154 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication under §§ 934.03 . . .

STATE v. M. HERSHKOWITZ,, 714 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . direction of investigative officers of the Insurance department — all in full compliance with section 934.03 . . . both totally unsupported by the language of section 934.07 and directly contrary to that of section 934.03 . . . To the contrary, the prior version of section 934.03(2)(c) was amended in 1988, Ch. 88-184, § 2, Laws . . . Reversed. . 934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited . . . . * * * # # * (c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer . . .

UNITED STATES v. G. BAILEY,, 123 F.3d 1381 (11th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 934.03(2)(c). . . .

STATE v. STOUT,, 693 So. 2d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Section 934.03 (2)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) provides: It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an . . . trial court found that the interception and recording in the instant case were permitted under section 934.03 . . . That this court finds that under the facts of this case, that the provisions of Fla.Stat. 934.03(2)(c . . . applied to telephone conversations taped with the consent of one of the parties as provided in section 934.03 . . . Accordingly, we hold that the interception here complied with the requirements of section 934.03(2)(c . . .

BRANDIN, v. STATE, 669 So. 2d 280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 934.03 provides in part that any person who intercepts an “oral ... communication” is guilty . . .

STEVENSON, v. STATE, 667 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . §§ 934.03, 934.07, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

STATE v. H. OSVATH,, 661 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . tape recording was inadmissible in evidence because it was made by the police in violation of Section 934.03 . . .

BARR, v. STATE, 659 So. 2d 370 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . daughter because it was taped under the direction of a law enforcement officer as permitted by paragraph 934.03 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, v. EDWARDS,, 654 So. 2d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . ascertained the tape recorder was turned on, then placed Edwards under arrest for violation of section 934.03 . . . The Department’s interest in the possible violation of section 934.03(1) related solely to discipline . . . Since that dismissal was based upon the alleged violation of section 934.03(1), we must determine whether . . . Pursuant to section 934.03(l)(a) and (4), any person who “[intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept . . . It appears the protections afforded by section 934.03 are inapplicable in the circumstances of this case . . .

WOOD, v. STATE, 654 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . charged by information with two counts of intercepting a telephone conversation in violation of section 934.03 . . . Appellant was charged with violating section 934.03(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides: ( . . . Section 934.03(4) provides that except in cases dealing with certain radio communications, such offense . . . good faith reliance on: (a) A court order, subpoena, or legislative authorization as provided in ss. 934.03 . . . See section 934.03(2)(d), requiring that all parties to a communication consent to the interception, . . .

STATE v. EDWARDS,, 645 So. 2d 588 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . appellee Edwards’ Criminal Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion and dismissed a criminal charge brought under section 934.03 . . . superiors at work, these statements did not constitute “oral statements” within the purview of section 934.03 . . .

STATE v. SMITH,, 641 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1994)

. . . and unauthorized tape recordings violate Florida’s constitutional right of privacy as well as section 934.03 . . . We find section 934.03, which provides that it is a crime to willfully intercept oral communications, . . . Thus, for an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 the speaker must have an actual subjective . . . Because we find that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police car, section 934.03 does . . . Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in relevant part: (1) Except as otherwise specifically . . .

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

. . . Ch. 88-184, § 2, at 1022 (codified as amended at § 934.03(2)(i)l., Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988)). . . .

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

. . . . § 2510(2) with section 934.03(2). . . .

BARRETT, v. STATE, 618 So. 2d 269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . arrest or otherwise “detained” constitute an invasion of the right of privacy and a violation of section 934.03 . . .

NELSON, v. STATE, 616 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . of a police car constitutes an invasion of his privacy and a violation of Florida Statutes Section 934.03 . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 616 So. 2d 509 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . unauthorized tape recordings constitute an invasion of the right of privacy and a violation of section 934.03 . . .

SPRINGLE, v. STATE WILSON, v. STATE, 613 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . expectation of privacy, it necessarily follows that what transpired sub judice was in violation of section 934.03 . . .

RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. LAZZARA OIL COMPANY,, 601 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . recordings, of telephone conversations with the plaintiffs in that suit in alleged violation of section 934.03 . . . Section 934.03 provides, in pertinent part, that [A]ny person who ... . . . the damage suit against the insured alleges that the recordings were “intentional,” whereas section 934.03 . . . Contrary to the insured’s arguments, to be in willful or intentional violation of section 934.03 and . . . That is, just as section 934.03, by providing that the willful interception of wire or oral communications . . .

WANDER v. FEINBERG, 50 Fla. Supp. 2d 126 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . based on F.S. 934.10 — Civil remedies for violations of Florida’s Securities of Communications Law, § 934.03 . . . WANDERS in illegally using a device to intercept an oral communication uttered by him violated both F.S. 934.03 . . .

STATE v. M. SELLS,, 582 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . charges against David Sells, for endeavoring to intercept oral communications in violation of section 934.03 . . .

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

. . . person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted ... in violation of [sections] 934.03 . . . Ann. § 934.03(2)(d) (West Supp.1990). . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. McCLURE,, 575 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1991)

. . . office acted pursuant to the authority of a state attorney and therefore acted lawfully under section 934.03 . . .

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

. . . . § 934.03(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

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

. . . Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1989), prohibits the intentional interception of any wire, oral, or . . . Section 934.03(2)(c) allows a law enforcement officer to intercept a communication when one of the parties . . . conversation should be suppressed because her friend had not voluntarily consented to place the call. § 934.03 . . .

SGOUROS v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 41 Fla. Supp. 2d 35 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . Appellant contends that the recording was a violation of § 934.03, Florida Statutes (1985) which prohibits . . .

STATE v. ONO,, 552 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Welker, 536 So.2d 1017 (Fla.1988); § 934.03(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). REVERSED and REMANDED. . . .

L. TROMBLEY, v. STATE, 541 So. 2d 798 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . State, 489 So.2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and section 934.03(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). . . .

STATE v. A. WELKER,, 536 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1988)

. . . For purposes of obtaining evidence of a criminal act, section 934.03(2)(c) authorizes a law enforcement . . .

HOLLAND, v. STATE, 528 So. 2d 36 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . had indicated that in his opinion “it was a third degree felony violation of the law” (see section 934.03 . . .

MORALES, v. STATE, 513 So. 2d 695 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . telephone conversation of the accomplice, Batista, because he feared that his own criminal violation of § 934.03 . . . no real effect upon the verdict, I strongly disagree with that conclusion, .Since a violation of § 934.03 . . . necessarily was influenced — at least to some degree — by the fact that he had, in violation of Section 934.03 . . .

J. LaPORTE, v. STATE, 512 So. 2d 984 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . was convicted of five felony counts of interception of oral communications in violation of section 934.03 . . . expectation and society is prepared to accept that expectation as reasonable, a violation of section 934.03 . . .

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

. . . . § 934.03(2)(c). . . . Other cases have discussed the Tollett requirement as if it were based on a construction of § 934.03. . . .

L. MADSEN, v. STATE, 502 So. 2d 948 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . . § 934.03(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1977). . . . holding it unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution as follows: [I]nsofar as that statute [§ 934.03 . . .

SNOWDON, v. SAMBO S, 491 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 934.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1983), makes unlawful any tape recording of an “oral communication . . . Since neither the deputy nor the E/C have relied upon the provisions of section 934.03 to support denial . . .

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION v. GORMAN, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 261 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1986)

. . . Therefore, Subsection 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), authorizes such a recording even though . . .

STATE v. CALHOUN,, 479 So. 2d 241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for any person (including . . . The videotaping was an unlawful interception of an oral communication in violation of section 934.03, . . .

STATE v. INCIARRANO,, 473 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985)

. . . moved to suppress the tape of the conversation between himself and the victim on the basis that section 934.03 . . . Section 934.03 describes the limited circumstances where the interception of oral communications is lawful . . . subject communication did not fall within any situations permitting interception set forth in section 934.03 . . . reasonable expectation of privacy, Ineiarrano’s “oral communications” were not protected under section 934.03 . . .

EVANS v. STATE, 473 So. 2d 745 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . been required to testify in person for the court to determine his consent to the recordings. , Section 934.03 . . . Section 934.03(2)(c) provides: It is lawful under this chapter for a law enforcement officer or a person . . .

MURPHY, v. CITY OF FLAGLER BEACH, H. MURPHY, v. FLAGLER BEACH,, 761 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . §§ 934.03 et seq. . . .