Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 934.15 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 934.15 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 934.15

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. 934.15
934.15 Situations in which law enforcement officer may order telephone line cut, rerouted, or diverted.
(1) The supervising law enforcement officer at the scene of an incident where there is reasonable cause to believe:
(a) That a person is holding one or more hostages,
(b) That a person has barricaded herself or himself and taken a position of confinement to avoid apprehension,
(c) That there is the probability that a subject about to be arrested will resist with the use of weapons, or
(d) That a person has barricaded herself or himself and is armed and is threatening suicide,

may order law enforcement or telephone company personnel to cut, reroute, or divert telephone lines for the purpose of preventing telephone communications between the suspect and any person other than a law enforcement officer or the law enforcement officer’s designee, if such cutting, rerouting, or diverting of telephone lines is technically feasible and can be performed without endangering the lives of telephone company or other utility personnel.

(2) The good faith reliance by a telephone company on an oral or written order to cut, reroute, or divert telephone lines given by a supervising law enforcement officer under subsection (1) constitutes a complete defense to any civil, criminal, or administrative action arising out of such an order.
History.ss. 1, 2, ch. 87-357; s. 1585, ch. 97-102.

F.S. 934.15 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.15 on Casetext

Amendments to 934.15


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 934.15
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 934.15.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

LEE, v. STATE, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . While the offenses described by section 847.0135(3) and section 934.15 are subsumed within the proof . . . occurring during a single criminal episode” and thus vacated the conviction for the violation of section 934.15 . . .

DETTLE, s v. STATE s, 226 So. 3d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (considering double jeopardy issue applied to convictions under §§ 847.0135(4) and 934.15 . . .

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CHARLOTTE COUNTY,, 774 So. 2d 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See, e.g., §§ 287.045(5), 373.0421(l)(b)(l), 373.223(3)(e), 373.461(l)(a), 376.031(22), 934.15(l)(d), . . .