Cases from cite.case.law:

E. CAMPBELL D. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 267 So. 3d 541 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . communications were private, and that the recording and transcript were inadmissible under section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . . § 934.06. Here, Mother recorded her conversation with Smith. . . . the State attempted to admit the recorded phone call into evidence, Smith objected based on section 934.06 . . . Our supreme court has held that the exclusionary rule in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2016), is . . .

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

. . . were obtained in violation of the prohibition against surreptitious recordings contained in section 934.06 . . . More specifically, section 934.06 provides: Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted . . .

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

. . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, provides that secret recordings cannot be used as evidence unless an . . .

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

. . . The trial court ruled that the statements were inadmissible because the recording violated section 934.06 . . . Section 934.06 states that “[wjhenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of . . . Inciarrano, 473 So.2d 1272, 1275 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court held that to prevail under section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . Belle filed a motion to exclude the iPhone recording under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2012). . . . made in violation of section 934.03 is inadmissible as evidence in any trial or legal proceeding. § 934.06 . . . Although a motion to suppress or exclude evidence under section 934.06 has similarities to a motion to . . .

BATH FITTER FRANCHISING, INC. v. LABELLE,, 156 So. 3d 588 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2014). Affirmed as to both the appeal and cross-appeal. . . .

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

. . . According to Judge Villanti, section 934.06 is unambiguous and the recordings clearly fall within the . . . Section 934.06 provides that the contents of any improperly intercepted communication may not be used . . . The Court concluded that the recording was inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975) . . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), contains no exception to the prohibition against use of the . . . CONCLUSION We thus conclude that the recordings should have been suppressed under section 934.06, and . . .

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

. . . reading the prepared transcripts, the trial court determined that they were inadmissible under section 934.06 . . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2004): Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted . . . exhibiting an expectation of privacy under circumstances that society is willing to accept as reasonable. § 934.06 . . .

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

. . . the portion of the majority’s opinion that could be interpreted as creating an exception to section 934.06 . . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2010), specifically provides: Whenever any wire or oral communication . . . Thus, the plain language of sections 934.03 and 934.06 prohibits the admission of the recordings at issue . . . victim of child sexual abuse should not be subject to the clear and unambiguous provisions of section 934.06 . . . The fact that the legislature has chosen not to create such an exception to section 934.06 conveys an . . . McDade moved to suppress the recordings under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2010). . . . The standard of review for an order denying a motion to suppress evidence under section 934.06 has not . . . Because McDade was attempting to invoke the protection of 934.06, we conclude that he had the initial . . . such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial.... ” § 934.06 . . . both civil and criminal penalties, as well as by the statutory exclusionary rule contained is section 934.06 . . .

T. BROWN, Jr. v. MASSACHUSETTS,, 950 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . J §§ 934.06-934.07). . . .

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

. . . See § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

TRACEY, v. STATE, 69 So. 3d 992 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . . § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

In APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING DISCLOSURE OF LOCATION INFORMATION OF A SPECIFIED WIRELESS TELEPHONE, 849 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D. Md. 2011)

. . . . §§ 934.06, 934.42; S.C.Code Ann. § 17-30-140; Okla. . . .

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

. . . Section 934.06 states that no part of an intercepted communication may be received into evidence where . . . the disclosure of that information would be a violation of the statute. § 934.06, Fla. . . .

L. PULLAM, v. STATE, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . includes a $10 surcharge under section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2009), and a $20 court cost under section 934.06 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MAYNARD,, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

. . . . §§ 934.06, 934.42; S.C.Code Ann. § 17-30-140; Okla. Stat., tit. 13, §§ 176.6, 177.6; Haw. Rev. . . .

MACKERLEY, v. SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 284 F. App'x 736 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 934.06 (West 2008). . Appellant’s request for oral argument is DENIED. . . .

STATE v. PRUITT,, 967 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See §§ 901.151(6) (“Stop and Frisk Law”); 934.06 (illegally intercepted wire or oral communications), . . .

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

. . . Section 934.06 provides: Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the . . . Therefore, based upon section 934.06, the tape recording is inadmissible to impeach Doctor. . . .

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

. . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1999), prohibits the contents of an intercepted communication from . . .

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

. . . For example, section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2005), provides that the content of illegally intercepted . . .

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

. . . The exclusionary provisions of the Act are found in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2003), which provides . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. AISENBERG J., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 934.06 provides a statutorily created exclusionary remedy; Leon addresses the judicially created . . .

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

. . . comment on the state’s use of tape-recorded conversation which has been obtained in violation of section 934.06 . . . Section 934.06 prohibits the use of evidence obtained as a result of intercepted communications. . . . Constitution by Article I, Sections 12 and 23 of the Florida Constitution, and by sections 934.03 and 934.06 . . .

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

. . . admission of the tape into evidence did not violate the statutory exclusionary rule found in section 934.06 . . . The statutory exclusionary rule found in section 934.06 prohibits the contents of an intercepted communication . . .

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

. . . Stat. ch. 934.06 states: Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the . . .

STATE v. WILLIAMSON,, 701 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Section 934.06 makes inadmissible only “the contents of such communication and ... evidence derived therefrom . . . Nor does section 934.06 prevent the disclosure that a telephone conversation between Khalilian and appellees . . . consider the authorized recordings as inevitable discovery or as discovery not prohibited by section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . and the prohibition against using intercepted oral communications as evidence, contained in section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . concluded that the tape recording and any evidence derived from it were inadmissible under section 934.06 . . . Consequently, the section 934.06 prohibition against the use of intercepted oral communications as evidence . . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in relevant part: Whenever any wire or oral communication . . .

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

. . . the trial court should have excluded evidence derived from the duplicate display pager under section 934.06 . . . To that end, section 934.06 specifically prohibits the use of any evidence obtained or derived from an . . .

MILLER, v. STATE, 619 So. 2d 9 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 934.06 prohibits the use of any information obtained from wire or oral communications as evidence . . .

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

. . . evidence derived in the instant case as a result of that recording, are inadmissible under section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . the contents of the tape recording and any evidence derived therefrom are inadmissible under section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . Florida Statutes (1991), and consequently, the evidence derived therefrom is inadmissible under section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . not come within the prohibition against the use of illegally obtained evidence set forth in section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . If the recording did in fact violate the statute, the tape is inadmissible under section 934.06. . . . the appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the exclusionary rule of section 934.06 . . .

SUTTON, v. STATE SUTTON, v. STATE, 556 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Leon did not override the mandatory exclusion of evidence which is statutorily required by section 934.06 . . .

STATE v. GARCIA, STATE v. H. DAVIS,, 547 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1989)

. . . 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), is better law than the mandatory exclusion required by section 934.06 . . . . § 934.06, Fla.Stat. (1985). . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. ROSA,, 37 Fla. Supp. 2d 157 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1988)

. . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes. . . .

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

. . . Suppression of evidence obtained from an illegally obtained wiretap is further mandated by section 934.06 . . . Reference to such exclusion for violations of section 934.06, Florida Statutes, appears in this court . . .

STATE v. C. LOCKMAN,, 525 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985) says: We grant the writ and quash the order of suppression. . . .

STATE v. C. LOCKMAN,, 522 So. 2d 482 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The state seeks review of an order which under the authority of section 934.09(9)(a) and section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . that is, one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable — the exclusionary rule of Section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . prohibiting the use as evidence of unlawfully intercepted wire communications contained in Florida Statute 934.06 . . . Pursuant to Florida Statute 934.06, the Court finds that the disclosure of information obtained from . . . wholly obviate the necessity for any exclusionary rule, be it that as contained in Florida Statute 934.06 . . .

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

. . . In addition to the felony sanctions, section 934.06 expressly provides that no part of the contents of . . . violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes, and must be excluded from evidence pursuant to section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . 934.03, Florida Statutes (1981), proscribed the interception of these oral communications and section 934.06 . . . In Walls, this Court addressed the constitutionality of sections 934.02(2), 934.-03, and 934.06 and the . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. CALHOUN, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1984)

. . . In addition to the felony sanctions, section 934.06 expressly provides that no part of the contents of . . . violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes, and must be excluded from evidence pursuant to section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . . § 934.06, Fla.Stat. (1981). . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 407 So. 2d 399 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . defendant’s conversations was in violation of both Article I, § 12 of the Florida Constitution and § 934.06 . . .

ODOM, v. STATE, 403 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1981)

. . . See § 934.06, Fla.Stat. (1975). . . .

STATE v. J. TSAVARIS,, 394 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)

. . . Feegel’s recording did not amount to an interception within the contemplation of section 934.06 is convincing . . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted . . . Section 934.06. This recording, however, was not an interception. . . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted . . .

SHAYNE, v. STATE, 384 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . contends, however, that the contents of the January calls should have been suppressed pursuant to Section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . The only possible statutory prohibition is Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides in . . . Section 934.06 provides that whenever a communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of . . .

STATE v. KEATON,, 371 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979)

. . . . § 934.06, Fla.Stat. (1977). . . . section 934.02(4)(a) provides that the contents of the call are exempted from the exclusion of section 934.06 . . .

CAMPBELL, v. STATE, 365 So. 2d 751 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 934.06 prohibits the reception at trial of any evidence which was obtained in violation of Ch . . .

STATE v. NOVA,, 361 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1978)

. . . Section 934.06 provides: Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications.— . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. NELLIGAN,, 573 F.2d 251 (5th Cir. 1978)

. . . . § 934.06 (1973) forbids the use in evidence of unlawfully taped conversations. . . .

In SPRING TERM PINELLAS COUNTY GRAND JURY W. R. In STATE INVESTIGATION W. R., 357 So. 2d 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 934.06 specifically states that evidence obtained as a result of violation of Chapter 934, Florida . . .

STATE v. WALLS, 356 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1978)

. . . interlocutory order of the trial court upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 934.02(2), 934.03 and 934.06 . . . 943.03, Florida Statutes, and that use of the electronic recording as evidence is prohibited by Section 934.06 . . . Granting the motion to suppress, the trial judge expressly ruled Sections 934.02(2), 934.03 and 934.06 . . . Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), provides: “Whenever any wire or oral communication has been . . . Appellant in effect requests this Court to create an exception to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975 . . .

NOVA, v. STATE, 346 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . communication have given prior consent to such interception” controls and that pursuant to Section 934.06 . . . contents of the intercepted communication should not have been allowed at trial, pursuant to Section 934.06 . . .

STATE v. NEWS- PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY, a k a a, 338 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . The News-Press relies upon Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1973) which reads: “934.06 Prohibition of . . . Despite the broad language of Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1973), our Supreme Court in the case . . . person to make an illegal tape recording and then rely upon the evidentiary prohibitions of Section 934.06 . . .

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

. . . (F.S. 934.06; F.S. 934.09(8)) Further, the Supreme Court of Florida has already so interpreted Chapter . . . Florida Statute 934.06, F.S.A., provides as follows: “Whenever any wire or oral communication has been . . .

TAYLOR, v. STATE, 292 So. 2d 375 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . If so, the evidence would have been prohibited by Section 934.06 which provides as follows: “Whenever . . .

In GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. In COBO,, 287 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1973)

. . . . § 934.06, F.S.A., provides as follows: “Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted . . . The First District Court recognized that in a wiretap case under F.S. § 934.06, F.S. . . . If as per the District Court of Appeal’s conclusion, F.S. § 934.06, F.S. . . . . § 934.06, F.S.A., supra, to prohibit unauthorized wiretap information going to the grand jury? . . . [Section 934.06] “The suppression section of the act provides in pertinent part: ‘Any aggrieved person . . . evidentiary prohibition section of the federal act, 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (the counterpart of our statute, F.S. § 934.06 . . .

In GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION CONCERNING EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY COURT AUTHORIZED WIRETAPS, 276 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . . § 934.06, F.S.A.), as a defense to the contempt charges of which they had been adjudged guilty. . . . F.S., § 934.06, F.S.A. . . . .

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

. . . derived therefrom, relying upon Title 18, Section 2518, of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1968, and Section 934.06 . . .

v., 39 T.C. 856 (T.C. 1963)

. . . 00 Capital_ $500. 00 Union Trust Company_ 25, 084.66 Surplus- 13, 636.29 Guardian Trust Company_ 6, 934.06 . . .

DUDLEY v. MEALEY, 147 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1945)

. . . as follows: $16,000 of “First Mortgage 5% Bonds” of date May 1, 1909, overdue, on which interest of $934.06 . . .

AMERICAN LOAN CO. v. HANDY,, 16 F. Supp. 107 (D. Del. 1936)

. . . . 44.27 Help wanted advertisements for salesmen.............. 2,015.64 Miscellaneous .............. 934.06 . . .

ALBURY v. CARGO OF THE LUGANO, 215 F. 963 (S.D. Fla. 1913)

. . . the salvage work making two trips with cargo, was short in the delivery of goods to the amount of $934.06 . . .