Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...under circumstances justifying such expectation. " Smith, 641 So.2d at 852 (some emphasis added) (quoting § 943.02(2), Fla. Stat. (1991)). The South Carolina law essentially employs the same definition. See S.C.Code Ann. § 17-30-15(2) (2005); cf. § 934.02(2), Fla....

...We agree with Judge Farmer's concurring opinion to the district court's majority decision in respect to the applicability of the statute and *1117 adopt that portion of Judge Farmer's opinion. "Oral communication" intended to be protected by chapter 934 is defined by section 934.02(2) as: [A]ny oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication....

...See United States v. Nelson, 837 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 829, 109 S.Ct. 82, 102 L.Ed.2d 58 (1988). Here, the "intercepted" conversations originated within the Mozos' home and thus exhibited the required expectation of privacy demanded by section 934.02(2)....

...y a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication." § 934.02(2), Fla....

...provided by law. [3] The Florida Statutes define a pen register as: a device which records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached ... § 934.02(20), Fla....

...After the hearing on this motion, the trial court denied the motion to suppress on the basis, among others, that: 2. The utterances made by the Defendant on the tape recording admitted into evidence did not constitute "oral communications" within the meaning of Florida Statutes 934.02(2), in that said statements were not made under circumstances justifying an expectation to privacy; 3....

...Tsavaris . Walls and Tsavaris, however, do not control in the present case. Section 934.03 describes the limited circumstances where the interception of oral communications is lawful. In Walls, this Court addressed the constitutionality of sections 934.02(2), 934.03, and 934.06 and the question of whether an extortionary threat delivered personally to the victim in his home was an "oral communication" as defined in section 934.02(2)....

...ire communications and to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, we upheld the validity of the statutes in question. Although the issue of whether the recording of Walls' threats was an "interception" within the definition of section 934.02(3) was not presented to this Court in State v....

...When this issue was presented to us by certified question from the District Court of Appeal, Second District, a majority of this Court agreed that the recording was an unlawful interception. In neither Walls nor Tsavaris did we address the requirement of section 934.02(2) that there be a reasonable expectation of privacy in the oral communication in order for it to be protected under the security of communications statute. Section 934.02(2), in defining oral communication, expressly provides: "`Oral communication' means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justify...

...None of the exceptions listed in section 934.03(2) applies in the present factual situation. Therefore, if the recording of Tsavaris's conversation by Dr. Feegel constitutes an "interception," no part of the contents of such communication may be received into evidence. Intercept is defined by section 934.02(3) to mean the "aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." "Aural acquisition" means to gain control or possession of a thing through the sense of hearing. [3] Thus pursuant to section 934.02(3), "to intercept" means to gain control or possession of a communication through the sense of hearing and through the use of an electronic or mechanical device....

...Feegel's recording was an interception within the contemplation of chapter 934, then he is guilty of a third-degree felony, and none of the contents of the recorded conversation is admissible into evidence. Section 934.06. This recording, however, was not an interception. Intercept is defined by section 934.02(3) to mean the "aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." Intercept is defined in general to mean "to take, seize, or stop by the way or before...

...ome between himself and the extortionist without the consent of the extortionist. Therein, this Court held that the recording should be suppressed based upon the premise that the extortionary threat was an oral communication within the definition of section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1975). The issue of whether the recording was an "interception" within the definition of section 934.02(3) was not presented to this Court....

...If the legislature had intended to make it unlawful for any person to record an oral or wire communication, it could easily have done so in plain and simple language. It did not. Instead, it criminalized only the willful interception of wire or oral communication. Section 934.03(1)(a). When section 934.02(2)(d) was amended to provide that it was lawful to intercept a wire or oral communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception, the legislature still referred only to interceptions, not recordings....

...§ 934.06, Fla. Stat. (1977). The only apparent situation in which a prosecution might be based upon the report of one who is not a party to such a conversation is when the complainant has "listened in" in the ordinary course of business. In such a case, section 934.02(4)(a) provides that the contents of the call are exempted from the exclusion of section 934.06....

...Bentley, listened to the conversation on an extension phone. Nova's subsequent conviction was based in part upon the supervisor's testimony as to threats made by Nova during this second call. In affirming the trial court's ruling that the exclusion provided by section 934.02(4)(a) was applicable, we noted: The trial judge found that it was reasonable for Bentley, as Revel's supervisor, to listen on the phone in order to find out why Revel was so upset....

...Appellants' argument is basically that the beeper messages come within the definition in chapter 934 of "wire communication," which does not include an express requirement of an expectation of privacy, unlike the definition of "oral communication." These definitions, found in subsections (1) and (2) of section 934.02, Florida Statutes (1977), are as follows: "Wire communication" means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception......

...329, 143 So. 152 (1932). The instant statute can be so construed, and we do so to avoid reaching a result that would require a warrant or a court order to listen to the open and available airwaves. The definition of wire communications contained in section 934.02 must be interpreted in a common sense and reasonable manner....

...er the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for first degree murder. The District Court reversed as to the first point but did not reach the second. After determining that Juanita Bentley's testimony did not fall within the exclusion of Section 934.02(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), the District Court held that Bentley's testimony should have been suppressed....

...department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The word "intercept" is defined in Section 934.02(3): "Intercept" means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device; ... The term "electronic, mechanical, or other device" is defined in Section 934.02(4)(a) as any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire or oral communication other than: Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility or any component thereof furnished to the subscriber or user by a com...

...siness, or being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties; ... The determinative issue is whether the exclusion provided by Section 934.02(4)(a) is applicable....

...n on the phone in order to find out why Revel was so upset. He concluded that Bentley's use of the telephone in this instance was for the benefit of her employer and was in the ordinary course of business, and he found that the exclusion provided by Section 934.02(4)(a) was applicable....

...Our statute, Chapter 934, Florida Statutes (1975), prohibits the recording of "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such conversation is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation... ." Section 934.02(2)....

authorized to enter such orders under Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.02(8). For the foregoing reasons, the order of the

...FEI/doctors assert that mere recording of images equates to the interception of communications. They point out that interception includes "aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." § 934.02(3), Fla....

...We disagree with this interpretation of the statute. Under the statute, the term "intercept" includes "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." § 934.02(3), Fla. Stat. (2007). While FEI/doctors contend that the silent video captures the contents of the communication, section 934.02(7) defines "contents" as including "any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication." The doctors' physical conduct recorded on silent videotapes does not convey the substance of a particular communication....

...We agree with our sister circuits that, by its plain meaning, the text of Title III does not apply to silent video surveillance. Id. at 90 (emphasis supplied). As the Florida statute is patterned after the federal statute and contains essentially the same language, we conclude that silent video surveillance is not covered by section 934.02 or 934.10....

...There is no question but that Joyce Walker was acting without the consent, knowledge or acquiescence of either party to the communication when she allegedly *197 overheard the telephone conversation complained of. By her own testimony she was simply "being nosey" and was "eavesdropping." Florida Statute 934.02, F.S.A....

...To be liable to Royal Health, therefore, JP Life must have intercepted the phone call. “Intercept” is *217 defined as “the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.02(3) (West Supp.1990)....

...f its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business.... Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.02(4)(a) (West Supp....

...15 For these reasons, we find Royal Health’s arguments unconvincing. V. CONCLUSION We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company. 16 AFFIRMED. 1 . Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 934.01-934.43 (West Supp. 1990). 2 . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.02(4)(a) (West Supp.1990)....

...test results, including the date the breathalyzer was last inspected, is admissible as exception to hearsay rule). [11] We note that Florida law does regulate the use of pen registers. See § 934.01, Fla. Stat. (2002) (making legislative findings); § 934.02(20), Fla....

...State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant. J. Brian Brennan of Brennan, Brown & Avery, West Palm Beach, for appellee. KARL, Justice. We have for review on petition for writ of certiorari granted an interlocutory order of the trial court upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 934.02(2), 934.03 and 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...lorida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 74-249, Laws of Florida. In his amended order on rehearing, the trial judge concluded that an extortionary threat delivered personally to the victim in the victim's home is an "oral communication" as defined in Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes, that this electronic recording without consent of all the parties to the communication was an illegal interception prohibited by Section 943.03, Florida Statutes, and that use of the electronic recording as evidence is prohibited by Section 934.06, Florida Statutes. Granting the motion to suppress, the trial judge expressly ruled Sections 934.02(2), 934.03 and 934.06 constitutional. Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1975), provides: "`Oral communication' means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectat...

...reof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter." We agree with the trial court that an extortionary threat delivered personally to the victim in the victim's home is an "oral communication" within the definition of Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1975); that pursuant to Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975), the electronic recording of such "oral communication" without the consent of all parties to the communication was prohibited; and that Section 934.0...

...e of the surveillance which resulted in the interception. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); see also State v. Eber, 502 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA) (where defendant was not an "aggrieved person," defined in section 934.02(9) as one "who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed," he lacked standing to challenge unlawful wiretap), rev....

...contents of any private wire, oral, or electronic communications. In order to fall within the protections of the Act, the communication must initially fit within the definition of a "wire," "oral," or "electronic" communication as described therein. Section 934.02(1) defines "wire communication" as: any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between *628 the point of origin a...

...Such term includes any electronic storage of such communication but does not include the radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit. (Emphasis added). An "electronic communication" is defined in section 934.02(12) as: any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system that affects intrastate, in...

...ommunication expressly exclude a cordless phone, the conversations at issue fall outside the coverage of those definitions. The Mozos contend, however, that cordless phone conversations are covered by "oral communication" as protected and defined by section 934.02(2): any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication....

...a policy choice that our statute would be interpreted consistent with those of other states and the federal statute which contain the exact same exceptions. Accordingly, we hold cordless communications do not qualify as an "oral communication" under section 934.02(2) and thus fall outside the protection afforded by the Act....

...conflict with the constitution. Firestone v. News-Press Publishing Co. Inc., 538 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1989). The statutory definition of "oral communications" is literally broad enough to embrace the kind of cordless telephone conversation involved here. Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1991), defines a protected oral communication as "any communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectat...

...State, 636 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), wherein the Second District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: DOES INFORMATION TRANSMITTED TO A DISPLAY PAGER CONSTITUTE AN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AS DEFINED BY SECTION 934.02(12), FLORIDA STATUTES (1991), SUCH THAT TO LAWFULLY INTERCEPT SUCH INFORMATION THROUGH A DUPLICATE DISPLAY PAGER, THE STATE OF FLORIDA MUST FIRST SEEK AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 934.07 AND 934.09, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991)? Id....

...ations. Without this tainted information, she argued, the facts relied on to establish probable cause were otherwise stale. Jackson also argued that the information transmitted to a display pager constitutes an electronic communication as defined by section 934.02(12), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. The interception then remains under the control and supervision of the authorizing court. Tone-only paging devices are specifically excluded from the coverage of both the Florida and federal statutes. See § 934.02(12)(c), Fla....

...In Dorsey, the police intercepted beeper messages by means of a radio scanner without a warrant. Emphasizing the broadcast nature of beeper messages and reasoning that wire communications are those actually transmitted by wire, we rejected the argument that such messages constituted wire communications under section 934.02(1)....

...GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] A pen register is a device that records or decodes electronic or other impulses that identify the numbers dialed or transmitted on the telephone line to which the device is attached. § 934.02(20), Fla. Stat. (1991). A trap-and-trace device captures the incoming electronic or other impulses that identify the originating number of an instrument or a device from which a wire or electronic communication was transmitted. § 934.02(21), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] Section 934.02(12), Florida Statutes (1991), defines "electronic communication" as any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoel...

...(1995)), which seek to protect the privacy of the speaker. This interpretation is further supported by the Act's definition of "wire communication": "[A]ny aural transfer ... by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception. " § 934.02(1), Fla....

...deprived them of a impartial jury. Accordingly, we hold that no error is shown by the defendants' first point. The defendants' second point urges that the trial court erred in denying their motion to suppress the tape recorded conversation. [6] *70 Section 934.02(1), Florida Statutes (1977), defines "wire communication" as "......

...Jones' guilt was properly a matter for jury resolution. The Joneses argue that their tape recorded statements should not have been admitted because they had a reasonable *349 expectation that their oral communications would not be subject to interception under section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1987), and because the surreptitious recording of their post-arrest statements violated their fourth and fifth amendment rights....

...A pen register is one of the least intrusive methods *718 of obtaining information about such suspects. If the legislature had intended to require that search warrants accompany pen register use, it could easily have included pen registers in its list of definitions enumerated in section 934.02, Florida Statutes (1983). The absence of pen registers in section 934.02 supports the reasonable assumption that the type of privacy interest protected by chapter 934, covering Security of Communications, is not the same type of privacy interest addressed by article I, section 23....

...owing 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; ... shall be punished as provided in subsection (4). Fla. Stat. § 934.03 (2016). Section 934.02 in turn defines “oral communication” as any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication. Fla. Stat. § 934.02 (2016) (emphasis added). Section 934.02 does not apply to the recording of all oral communications. It is expressly limited to communications “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception.... ” Fla Stat. § 934.02 (emphasis added)....

...It is therefore clear to us that because Chief Rolle failed to “exhibit” the expectation of privacy that is required by the statute, the government is not,entitled to invoke it and McDonough did not violate it. The recording also falls under an exception carved out in section 934.02 for com *1320 munications “uttered at a public meeting.” Fla. Stat. § 934.02 ....

...corded, what you stated.... ” Appendix at 165. Furthermore, in addition to the fact that an expectation of privacy must be exhibited, the statute also requires that the “circumstances” must “justify [an] expectation” of privacy. Fla. Stat. § 934.02 ....

...Based on this open-government premise, the facts that all attendees of the meeting were either public employees acting in furtherance of their public duties, or members of the public discussing a matter of public interest, undermines any objective expectation of privacy. The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted § 934.02 to require “a reasonable expectation of privacy,” which includes “one’s actual subjective expectation of privacy as well as whether society is prepared to recognize this expectation as reasonable.” State v....

...acy where the recorded conversation was between three police officers in an office meeting about employment grievances). CONCLUSION We hold that because the recording on February 7, 2014 falls outside of the definition of “oral communication” in section 934.02, McDonough did not violate the *1321 statute and it imposes no restriction on his use of the recording he made at that meeting....

...4. We agree. *412 We find the intercepted communication does not constitute an "oral communication" within the meaning of chapter 934, and therefore the police did not need a warrant prior to its interception. §§ 934.03, 934.07, Fla. Stat. (1993). Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1993), defines "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation a...

...A significant factor used in determining the reasonableness of the defendant's expectation of privacy in a conversation is the location in which the conversation or communication occurs. "Conversations occurring inside an enclosed area or in a secluded area are more likely to be protected under section 934.02(2)." Cinci v....

...Ms. Williams and Ms. Sievert was not illegal because there could not be an intercept of a conversation where one of the parties to the conversation is causing it to be recorded. The following statutory definitions are pertinent to this discussion: "934.02 Definitions....

...party. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that at the same time Section 934.03(2)(d) was amended, the words "and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting," were added to the definition of "oral communication" in Section 934.02(2)....

...We, therefore, hold that the Florida Security of Communications Act prohibits a party to a conversation from recording this conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation, provided the conversation is not public as provided by Section 934.02(2) or the intercept is not conducted for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a criminal act under Section 934.03(2)(c)....

...subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter." On the other hand, Section 934.09(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1973) provides that any "aggrieved person" may move to suppress an unlawful intercept, and Section 934.02(9), Florida Statutes (1973) defines an "aggrieved person" as "a person who was a party to any intercepted wire or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed." Despite the broad language of Section 934.06,...

...Sells, 582 So.2d 1244 *631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), which presented a fact scenario virtually identical to the facts underlying the instant case. In Sells, the court reasoned that although the official being recorded fully expected the recording to take place, the question whether section 934.02(3), Florida Statutes, had been violated should be submitted to the jury....

...Pursuant to section 934.03(1)(a) and (4), any person who "[i]ntentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication," is guilty of a third-degree felony. "Oral communication" is defined in section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectatio...

...was prohibited by section 934.03, Florida Statutes. Later, in State v. Tsavaris, 394 So.2d 418, 421 (Fla. 1981), the court held that one party's recording of a telephone conversation without the consent of the other party constitutes a violation of section 934.02(3), Florida Statutes....

...Inciarrano conceded that his voice was on the recording, but moved to suppress the tape on the ground that the recording was made without his consent within the contemplation of Walls and Tsavaris. The supreme court noted that those cases did not address the section 934.02(2) requirement of a reasonable expectation of privacy in an oral communication in order to claim the protection afforded by the statute....

...nces of this case. For an oral communication to fit within the purview of chapter 934, it must be "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." § 934.02(2), Fla....

...oral ... communication ... is guilty of a felony of the third degree." The legislature defines intercept as "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any ... oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." § 934.02(3), Fla....

...within the meaning of Chapter 934, Florida Statutes (1979)?" In Tsavaris, a medical examiner tape recorded a telephone conversation with a murder suspect who called him. A majority of the court answered affirmatively finding: Intercept is defined by section 934.02(3) to mean the "aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." "Aural acquisition" means to gain control or possession of a thing through the sense of hearing. Thus pursuant to section 934.02(3), "to intercept" means to gain control or possession of a communication through the sense of hearing and through the use of an electronic or mechanical device....

...If the legislature had intended to make it unlawful for any person to record an oral or wire communication, it could easily have done so in plain and simple language. It did not. Instead, it criminalized only the willful interception of wire or oral communication. § 934.03(1)(a). When section 934.02(2)(d) was amended to provide that it was lawful to intercept a wire or oral communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception, the legislature still referred only to interceptions, not recordings....

...of a phone call is deemed to take place. "Intercept" is defined in the wiretap statute as "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." § 934.02(3), Fla....

...We have no difficulty with the listening in by Detective Poindexter, even though he was not a participant in the conversation and Dr. Tsavaris certainly was not aware that he was listening. An interception under Chapter 934 can only occur through the use of an electronic, mechanical or other device. Section 934.02(3). A telephone instrument furnished to a subscriber or user and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of business is specifically excluded from the scope of the words "electronic, mechanical or other device." Section 934.02(4)....

...Evidence derived "therefrom" refers, in our view, to evidence derived from the contents of the communication. Section 934.03(1)(c) makes it a crime to willfully disclose the contents of a communication knowing or having reason to know *66 that the information was obtained through an unlawful interception. Section 934.02(7) provides that the word "contents", when used with respect to a wire or oral communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication....

...zed interception of an "oral communication" in violation of Chapter 934, Florida Statutes (1993). Section 934.03 provides in part that any person who intercepts an "oral ... communication" is guilty of a felony. An "oral communication" is defined in section 934.02(2) as: any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication....

...[2] Only an oral communication "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such a communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation" falls within the ambit of statutorily protected communications. § 934.02(2), Fla.Stat....

...It shall be unlawful and a violation of this section for any individual to take possession of a handgun within three (3) working days after the purchase of the handgun. Records of handgun sales by retail establishments shall be available for inspection during normal business hours by any law enforcement agency as defined in Section 934.02, Florida Statutes....

...nother firearm through a prior purchase from the retail establishment; or who have another firearm for trade-in; (3) A law enforcement or correctional officer as defined in section 943.10, Florida Statutes; (4) A law enforcement agency as defined in Section 934.02, Florida Statutes; (5) Sales or transactions between dealers or between distributors or between dealers and distributors who have current federal firearms licenses; or (6) Any individual who has been threatened or whose family has been...

...Another term used in Chapter 934, operative here, is "oral communication." It is important to note that the statute speaks of communication as an "oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation...." § 934.02(2), Fla....

...evidence in this case discloses. We do not conclude from the language of our supreme court in Inciarrano that the private conversation that is surreptitiously recorded must in and of itself be a conversation that contains privileged communications. Section 934.02(2) defines "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any publi...

...nce the tape recording of appellant's conversation with Shelly Bellerud. The taped conversation occurred in the apartment building courtyard. Conversations occurring inside an enclosed area or in a secluded area are more likely to be protected under section 934.02(2)....

...electronic communications were intercepted. The term "intercept" is defined by the Act as "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." § 934.02(3), Fla....

...We also take this opportunity to note that the other allegations and arguments raised in O'Brien's motion are without merit or are points of law or fact already considered by this court. MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED. SHARP, W. and MONACO, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The term "electronic communications" is defined in section 934.02(12), Florida Statutes (2003), as "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system that affects intrastate, inter-state, or foreign commerce....

...le exception has been created. Tollett v. State, 272 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1973). A communication is "intercepted" by "the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." § 934.02(3), Fla....

...The word "person", as used in section 934.10, is defined by statute as follows: (5) "Person" means any employee or agent of the state or political subdivision thereof and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation; ... § 934.02, Fla....

...order lacked “territorial jurisdiction.” The government argues that both state and federal laws define the term “inter *1527 cept” to mean “the aural acquisition of the content of any ... communication_” 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (4); Fla.Stat. § 934.02(3)....

their own definition, perhaps by looking at Fla. Stat. 934,02(12) and Fla. Stat. 668.602(7), The definition

...NOTES [1] They also filed a motion for the court to take judicial notice of DPR's administrative complaint against Assad, Hodges and Rentfast, in which the appellees had filed an identical counterclaim. Pursuant to a stipulation, this motion was granted. That ruling has not been appealed. [2] Section 934.02(5), Florida Statutes (1983) provides, "`Person' means any employee or agent of the state or political subdivision thereof and individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation." [3] § 934.02, Fla....

...ic meeting and to require orderly behavior on the part of those attending, rules prohibiting the use of silent or nondisruptive tape recording devices would appear to be unreasonable and arbitrary and, therefore, invalid. Morever, the Legislature in s. 934.02(1), F.S., appears to implicitly recognize the public's right to silently record public meetings. Chapter 934, F.S., the Security of Communications Law, regulates the interception of oral communication. Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes, however, defines "oral communication" as specifically excluding "public oral communication uttered at a public meeting." Op....

...tatutes (1975), no part of the contents of such communication could be received at trial. Appellee, the State of Florida, contends that there was no interception of the contents of the conversation, within the meaning of the above statutory section. Section 934.02(3) defines "intercept" to mean the "aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." Subsection (4)(a) of the above statute excludes telephones used in...

...or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter." Section 934.02 defines "intercept" as follows: "`Intercept' means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." There being nothing in the record to indicate t...

...over Ms. France, then Counts II and III similarly fail. . "Intercept” is defined to mean the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. § 934.02(3), Fla....

...e connection between the point of origin and the point of reception, furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of intrastate, interstate, or foreign communications. § 934.02(1), Fla....

..."Oral communication" means: any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting. § 934.02(2). "Intercept" means "the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." § 934.02(3).

...ecords or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, but such information does not include the contents of any communication." § 934.02(20), Fla....

...identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication, but such information does not include the contents of any communication." § 934.02(21), Fla....

...Based on this certification, a judge is authorized to issue the order without requiring any greater specificity. § 934.33(1) and (5). With this background, the issue we confront is whether information intercepted by a duplicate display pager constitutes the interception of a protected electronic communication under section 934.02(12), Florida Statutes (1991), such that the state must first seek authorization pursuant to sections 934.07 and 934.09 before it can lawfully obtain and use such a device....

...tion of electronic communications. See Ch. 88-184, Laws of Fla. [6] Specifically, the legislature added a *1376 definition of "electronic communication" that was identical to its federal counterpart. Ch. 88-184, § 1, at 1017 (codified as amended at § 934.02(12), Fla....

...of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system.") It also conformed its definition of "intercept" to that of the federal act. Ch. 88-184, § 1, at 1016 (codified as amended at § 934.02(3), Fla....

...mitted to a display pager within the definitional ambit of electronic communication. See Mozo v. State, 632 So.2d 623, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we hold that information transmitted to a display pager is an electronic communication under section 934.02(12), and that to lawfully intercept such information through a duplicate display pager, the state must strictly comply with the requirements of sections 934.07 and 934.09....

...State, 402 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1981), the primary case relied on by the state. In Dorsey, the police used a scanner to intercept messages sent to a beeper or pocket pager. The court rejected the argument that such messages were wire communications under section 934.02(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...ecause our decision impacts on law enforcement techniques relating to wiretaps, we certify the following question as one of great public importance: DOES INFORMATION TRANSMITTED TO A DISPLAY PAGER CONSTITUTE AN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AS DEFINED BY SECTION 934.02(12), FLORIDA STATUTES (1991), SUCH THAT TO LAWFULLY INTERCEPT SUCH INFORMATION THROUGH A DUPLICATE DISPLAY PAGER, THE STATE OF FLORIDA MUST FIRST SEEK AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 934.07 AND 934.09, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991)? Reversed and remanded with directions....

...1986) ("The monitoring of [a] telephone pager device is more intrusive than the use of a pen register. The pager device is capable of conveying substantive information by combining digits in various sequences. Both telephone numbers and coded messages may be conveyed.") [2] Section 934.02(20), Florida Statutes (1991), defines pen register to mean "a device which records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attache...

...nication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication. (3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. § 934.02(1-3), Fla....

...See United States v. Nelson, 837 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 829, 109 S.Ct. 82, 102 L.Ed.2d 58 (1988). Here, the "intercepted" conversations originated within the Mozos' home and thus exhibited the required expectation of privacy demanded by section 934.02(2)....

...Such power should not be confused with an intercept ("wiretap" type) order, which may be sought only by full law enforcement officers. [emphasis supplied] The appellee has constructed an elaborate argument based on the fact that, in 1988, the definition of "investigative or law enforcement officer" contained in section 934.02(6) was not amended to conform to the expansion of section 934.03(2)(c)....

...ction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with ss. 934.03-934.09, an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications by the Department of Law Enforcement or any law enforcement agency as defined in s. 934.02 having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kidnapping, arson, gambling, robbery, bur...

...The term "person" as used in this provision is defined as: [A]ny employee or agent of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation. § 934.02(5), Fla....

...[2] In reaching its conclusion, the lower court deemed the remaining grounds raised for dismissal to be moot. [3] "`Intercept' means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." § 934.02(3), Fla....

...(2002) (defining "law enforcement officer"); § 741.28(4), Fla. Stat. (2002) (defining "law enforcement"); § 896.101(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2002) (defining "law enforcement officer"); § 901.1505(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) (defining "federal law enforcement officer"); § 934.02(6), Fla....

...se specifically provided in this chapter, any person who: (a) Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire or oral communication; * * * shall be guilty of a felony * * *" F.S. 934.02(2), Florida Statutes 1973, defined oral communication to mean "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation"....

...3d at 1310 (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228, 234 (Fla. 2009)). Section 934.03(1), Florida Statutes (2010), contains a general prohibition on the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communications. Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (2010), defines the term “oral communication” for purposes of chapter 934 as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception und...

...The Court concluded that the recording was inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975). The Court explained: We agree with the trial court that an extortionary threat delivered personally to the victim in the victim’s home is an “oral communication” within the definition of Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1975); that pursuant to Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975), the electronic recording of such “oral communication” without the consent of all parties to the communication was prohib...

...Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), contains no exception to the prohibition against use of the illegally intercepted wire or oral communication as evidence. Id. at 296. Similarly, under the definition of oral communication provided by section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (2010), McDade’s conversations with his stepdaughter - 10 - in his bedroom are oral communications....

...e “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that [his] communication [was] not subject to interception” and that McDade made those statements “under circumstances justifying” his expectation that his statements would not be recorded. § 934.02(2), Fla....

...persons involved in criminal activities have no justified expectation of privacy in conversations related to those activities. Such a categorical rule makes no sense either in the Fourth Amendment context or under the definition of “oral communication” in section 934.02(2)....

...(d) An investigative or law enforcement officer who receives records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer." (Emphasis added). Subsections (4)(a) and (b) of the statute make specific reference to "contents of communication." The term, "contents," is defined in section 934.02(7), Florida Statutes (2000), as it relates to wire, oral or electronic communications, as including "any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication." Section 934.22, Florida Statutes (2000), general...

...on service or remote computing service to the public from knowingly divulging the contents of a communication, except under certain limited described conditions, one of which is pursuant to section 934.23. An "electronic communication" is defined by section 934.02(12), Florida Statutes (2000), as "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by use of a wire, radio, [or] electromagnetic ......

...d from Nextel by use of the investigative subpoena. After considering the evidence presented, the trial court found that the toll analysis did not fall within the definition of "contents" of an "electronic communication," as contemplated by sections 934.02(7) and (12), Florida Statutes (2000), and was not protected by the Fourth Amendment....

...It is defined as a device that "records and decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted," but it does not include the contents of the communication. See § 934.02(20), Fla....

...The critical fact in Jackson was that the interception of pager transmissions to the appellant disclosed not only telephone numbers, but coded messages transmitted by the caller to the appellant. That is to say, the pager transmission included "contents," as defined by section 934.02....

...On the subject of section 934.03, the supreme court focused on the statutory phrase requiring the oral communication to be “ ‘uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation Id. at 852 (citing to section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1991)) (emphasis in original)....

...In the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, Jatar’s *1169 oral communications were not protected under section 934.03, and he is not entitled to civil remedies. Therefore, defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. As stated in State v. Inciarrano, 473 So.2d 1272, 1275 (Fla.1985), Section 934.02(2) in defining oral communication, expressly provides: ‘Oral communication’ means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation .......

...We are not persuaded by Jatar’s argument that the trial court’s summary judgment should be reversed under State v. Walls, 356 So.2d 294 (Fla.1978). Walls held that an extortion threat delivered to the victim in the victim’s home is an oral communication as defined by section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The grounds on which Relators rely for issuance of the Rule Nisi are that neither Justice Adkins nor any other member of this Court had authority under the State Constitution, F.S.A., (particularly Article V, Section 1, Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4(2)), or Section 4(2), or under Florida Statutes Section 934.02 and 934.09(1), (2), (3), and Chapter 25, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to authorize the interception of said oral or wire communications; that the Supreme Court of Florida is a court of limited jurisdiction having powers of organic law onl...

...al matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review”). Chapter 934 explicitly and broadly prohibits “any person,” including private individuals, from recording oral communications without consent and disclosing such recordings. §§ 934.02(5), .03(1)....

...may be received in evidence in any trial.... ” § 934.06. But the statutory proscription of chapter 934 only applies where the person uttering the communication has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication under the circumstances. § 934.02(2) (defining “oral communication” as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation....”)....

...INCIARRANO UNINTENTIONALLY WEAKENED THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY PROTECTING OUR PRIVACY Third, and related to my concerns in the preceding section, by shifting the analysis of this statute from the strong language in section 934.03(1) to the definition of “oral communication” in section 934.02(2), the decision in Inciarrano weakened the legislative policy protecting privacy....

...This structure created a strong policy and then placed the burden on litigants to overcome that policy by establishing one of the enumerated statutory exceptions. But Inciarrano changed this policy by its reliance on the definition of “oral communication” in section 934.02(2)....

...rsation is either a felon or a person free to record the conversation. This is true even though the recording party, before the recording device is turned on, can never be certain what the recorded party will say after it is turned on. By relying on section 934.02(2) instead of section 934.03, the holding in Inciarrano flips the burden of proof and persuasion from the party seeking an exception to the statute to the party seeking the protection of the statute....

communication was unlawfully intercepted[.] Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (2004), defines the term

...to Stalley and Hallback (Doc. #243 at 12). The term “intercept” is defined as “the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” See § 934.02(3), Fla....

...course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business .... See § 934.02(4)(a), Fla....

...This Court finds this to be the crux of the arguments posed by the parties in this action. Furthermore, the Tsavaris court focused its attention on whether the exceptions listed in section 934.03(2), Fla. Stat. applied to the factual situation- — -rather than section 934.02(4)(a), Fla....

...Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1049 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Biro, 143 F.3d 1421, 1425 (11th Cir.1998). It is further *1271 undisputed by the parties that a telephone call is considered wire communication. (Doc. #243 at 6; Doc. #269 at 14); see § 934.02(1), Fla....

...courts and administrative proceedings." § 934.01(2). "Oral communication" is defined as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation . . . ." § 934.02(2)....

..."the location in which the conversation or communication occurs." Stevenson v. State, 667 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Thus, " '[c]onversations occurring inside an enclosed area or in a secluded area are more likely to be protected under section 934.02(2).' " Id....

...towards neighbor’s car, and throwing garbage onto neighbor’s property— were insufficient to constitute stalking). Section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), prohibits the intercepting or recording of oral communications under certain circumstances as defined in section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (2017), but the defendant was not charged with intercepting oral communications....

...For purposes of section 934.03, an "oral communication" is defined as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation . . . ." § 934.02(2)....

...Belle's girlfriend warned him that she was going to record him, he actually took possession and control of the device that recorded both his words and actions. Accordingly, Mr. Belle did not establish that the communications were intercepted "under circumstances justifying" an expectation of privacy. See § 934.02(2). It may be that Mr....

subject to the qualifications expressed herein. Section 934.02(2), F. S., provides: "Oral communication" means

of timely filed motion for rehearing. 1 Section 934.02(5), Florida Statutes (2022), states that “‘[p]erson’

...by his superiors at work, these statements did not constitute “oral statements” within the purview of section 934.03, since the superiors actually set up a meeting because they suspected Edwards was attempting to tape record their conversations. Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes, defines “oral communications” as any communication “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and do...

...has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. Section 934.09(9)(a) permits any aggrieved person to bring an action to suppress the contents of an unlawful interception, and section 934.02(9) defines an “aggrieved person” as “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person- against whom the interception was directed.” In the instant case, police, investigating the s...

...[imposing criminal liability]. § 934.03(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). “Intercept” is defined as “the aural or other acquisition of the contents of . . . oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” Section 934.02(3), Fla....

...uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” § 934.02(2), Fla....

...(2009). One of these exceptions is for situations in which all parties to the conversation have given prior consent. § 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2009). The test to determine whether a person exhibits a subjective expectation of privacy set forth in section 934.02(2), defining “oral communication,” is substantially the same as the test enumerated in Smith v....

...ave given prior consent" to the recording. “Oral communication” is defined as a communication uttered by a person "exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." § 934.02(2), Fla....

...ral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial . . . , if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter." Section 934.02(2) defines oral communication as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any publ...

...The cameras inside the store were in visible locations, and Ms. Caraballo admitted she was aware of the cameras. We conclude that the circumstances surrounding Ms. Caraballo's statements did not justify any expectation she may have had that such statements were private and not subject to interception. See § 934.02(2)....

...934.03 - 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. 633.30 , a public utility as defined by ss. 365.01 and 366.02 , a law enforcement agency as defined by s. 934.02 (10), or any other entity with published emergency telephone numbers, or 2....

...ctronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business. Second, the call must be intercepted in the ordinary course of business." 6 Thus, the "business extension" exception or "extension phone" exception merely restates the language of section 934.02 (4)(a), Florida Statutes, and gives it a short, descriptive title....

...l operate as an exception to or qualification of the general terms of a more comprehensive statute. 7 Thus, in construing statutes, the specific controls over the general. 8 The "business extension" exception is a general restatement of the terms of section 934.02 (4)(a), Florida Statutes....

...cy on emergency telephone numbers. Sincerely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tgh 1 State v. Tsavaris , 394 So.2d 418 , 422 (Fla. 1981), citing State v. Walls , 356 So.2d at 296 (Fla. 1978). 2 Id . 3 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). 4 See , s. 934.02 (3), Fla. Stat. (1995). 5 Section 934.02 (4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). I would also note that the statute recognizes an exemption for wire taps performed by "an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties." Section 934.02 (4)(a)2., Fla....

...The defendant was speaking loudly enough, and the telephone was evidently being held in such a way, that the officer could hear the defendant’s side of the conversation. This does not qualify as an illegal interception of a wire communication for purposes of chapter 934. See id. § 934.02(3), (4); 934.03(1)....

essentially codified the decision in Katz. Section 934.02(2), (3), and (4), F.S., states: "(2) "Oral

...expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” § 934.02(2), Fla....

...communication . . . is guilty of a felony of the third degree.” The legislature defines intercept as “the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any . . . oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” § 934.02(3), Fla....

...appraiser’s right to privacy was being invaded. Id. at 1241. The Third District rejected that argument, noting, “Florida’s Constitutional right to privacy protects persons from governmental, not private intrusion.” Id. at 1242. The application of section 934.02 was never raised in that case. As the basis for its ruling, the Silversmith court stated that the insurer had not identified anything that would validly preclude a homeowner from openly recording an inspection of her own home....

...with a societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable.” Id. (quoting State v. Smith, 641 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1994)). However, by its express terms, chapter 934 prohibits what the appellees want to do. 6  Section 934.02 provides that an oral communication must be “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” § 934.02(2), Fla....

...expectation of privacy to the extent that their consent per the statute is unnecessary is both untenable and directly contradicted by the statute, our court’s jurisprudence, and cases from our sister courts. The “no expectation of privacy” exemption under section 934.02(2) applies to public speech which occurs in the public arena as well as those communications which occur in public settings, such as a lecture, rally, ceremony, or governmental proceedings or communications....

...expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” § 934.02(2), Fla....

...communication . . . is guilty of a felony of the third degree.” The legislature defines intercept as “the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any . . . oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” § 934.02(3), Fla....

...appraiser’s right to privacy was being invaded. Id. at 1241. The Third District rejected that argument, noting, “Florida’s Constitutional right to privacy protects persons from governmental, not private intrusion.” Id. at 1242. The application of section 934.02 was never raised in that case. As the basis for its ruling, the Silversmith court stated that the insurer had not identified anything that would validly preclude a homeowner from openly recording an inspection of her own home....

...with a societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable.” Id. (quoting State v. Smith, 641 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1994)). However, by its express terms, chapter 934 prohibits what the appellants want to do. 6  Section 934.02 provides that an oral communication must be “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” § 934.02(2), Fla....

...expectation of privacy to the extent that their consent per the statute is unnecessary is both untenable and directly contradicted by the statute, our court’s jurisprudence, and cases from our sister courts. The “no expectation of privacy” exemption under section 934.02(2) applies to public speech which occurs in the public arena as well as those communications which occur in public settings, such as a lecture, rally, ceremony, or governmental proceedings or communications....

...oing provision which generally proscribes interceptions. The term “intercept” is statutorily defined as, the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. *472 § 934.02(3), Fla.Stat....

...“Contents” of a communication which may not be lawfully intercepted, except as otherwise provided in Chapter 934, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport or meaning of that communication. § 934.02(7), Fla.Stat....

...Armstrong cited cases from other jurisdictions for the proposition that the foregoing is “well settled.” Id. at 90 . Apparently the rationale was that even if the device, by tracing telephone numbers, provided information “concerning the identity of the parties” under section 934.02(7), it was not an “aural acquisition” under section 934.02(3) in that information was not received through the ear or the sense of hearing....

...w at MCI. Defendant was ultimately arrested for perjury and providing a false official statement. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress 1 the recorded exit interview, arguing her statements were oral communications, as defined in section 934.02, Florida Statutes (2019), obtained in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2019), and subject to statutory suppression under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2019). The State countered that the recording fell outside the definition of “oral communications” provided in section 934.02 and thus Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in her oral statements because: (1) the recorded conversation was documented by Defendant in MINS and became a public record; (2) all three attendees at the exit interview wer...

...importance; the interview was witnessed by another FDOC employee; and the interview took place on government property. We agree. Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2019), prohibits the interception or recording of private oral communications in Florida. Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (2019), defines an “oral communication” as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expe...

...Id. In concluding that McDonough had not violated section 934.03, the Eleventh Circuit noted that “the expectations of privacy needed to trigger application of the statute must be exhibited; in other words they must be ‘shown externally’ or ‘demonstrated.’” Id. at 1319. The court held that section 934.02, which prohibits the recording of oral communications where a participant has an expectation of privacy, did not apply to the meeting, explaining: [T]here were at least four participants present: two members of the public,...

...the interview, the manner in which the communication was made, and the number of people present, we hold there was no subjective expectation of 4 privacy, and the recorded exit interview was not an “oral communication” as defined by section 934.02, Florida Statutes....

...Estache answered that he was a high school graduate and had the equivalent of some college education in Jamaica, where he was 2 A pen register “records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information . . . but such information does not include the contents of any communication.” § 934.02(20), Fla....

...entify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication, but such information does not include the contents of any communication.” § 934.02(21), Fla....

...device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or an object; or 1 “‘Aural transfer’ means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.” Id. § 934.02(18). 3  (d) Electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds. Id. § 934.02(1)–(2), (12). These statutory definitions control our analysis....

...communication.” Id. Accordingly, if a person is charged under section 934.03(1)(a) for unlawfully intercepting a “wire communication,” there is no requirement that the person whose communication was intercepted have a reasonable expectation of privacy. See § 934.02(1), Fla. Stat. This is true even though a person charged under section 934.03(1)(a), the same statutory subsection, for unlawfully intercepting an “oral communication” would be subject to such a requirement. See id. § 934.02(2); see also Baker v....

...See § 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (“It is lawful under this section . . . 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.”). Based on the plain language of section 934.02, situations may arise where the communication falls within the definition of both 4 “wire communications” and “oral communications” 2; whereas the Legislature specifically excluded “wire...

...(2023). An oral communication is “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” § 934.02(2), Fla. Stat. (2023) (emphasis added). As provided in “the definition of oral communication provided by section 934.02(2),” whether a person has an expectation that a conversation is private depends on the factual circumstances surrounding the conversation....

...g an expectation that [his] communication [was] not subject to interception’ and that McDade made those statements ‘under circumstances justifying’ his expectation that his statements would not be recorded.” (alteration in original) (quoting § 934.02(2), Fla....

...c surveillance, being amply supported by substantial competent evidence and controlling case law, is affirmed as to all defendants except Richard San Roman. Unlike the other defendants, San Roman is not an aggrieved person as that term is defined in Section 934.02(9), Florida Statutes (1981), 1 and has no standing to complain of infringements on the constitutional rights of others....

...1st DCA), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 779 (Fla.1981), which involved defendants whose telephone conversations were intercepted during the tap in question, simply does not support the trial court’s decision in this regard. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. . Section 934.02(9) reads: " ‘Aggrieved person’ means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed."

electronic, mechanical, or other device.' [Section 934.02(3), F. S.; emphasis supplied.] In s. 934.02(1)

...." However, an exception to the general prohibition against the interception of wire communications is provided in section 934.03 (2)(g), Florida Statutes, for certain law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to this paragraph: "It is lawful under ss. 934.03 - 934.09 for an employee of: 1. [A] law enforcement agency as defined by s. 934.02 (10), or any other entity with published emergency telephone numbers; 2....

...in the ordinary course of its business. Second, the call must be intercepted in the ordinary course of business." 13 Thus, this office determined that the "business extension" exception or "extension phone" exception merely restates the language of section 934.02 (4)(a), Florida Statutes, and gives it a short, descriptive title....

...Stat., setting forth legislative findings. 2 See, s. 934.03 (4), Fla. Stat., making violations of the statute a felony and prescribing penalties; and s. 934.10 , Fla. Stat., providing a civil cause of action against violators of ss. 934.03 - 934.09 , Fla. Stat. 3 Section 934.02 (1), Fla. Stat. 4 Section 934.02 (3), Fla. Stat. 5 State v. Tsavaris, 394 So.2d 418 , 422 (Fla. 1981), citing State v. Walls, 356 So.2d at 296 (Fla. 1978). 6 Id . 7 Section 934.02 (10), Fla. Stat. 8 See , s. 934.02 (2), Fla....

...f a call to the number from which the incoming emergency call was placed and is necessary to obtain information required to provide the emergency services being requested, see , s. 934.03 (2)(g), Fla. Stat. 10 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). 11 See , s. 934.02 (3), Fla. Stat. 12 Section 934.02 (4)(a), Fla....

...in which Perdue had no expectation of privacy. First, the recording that was the subject of the motion to suppress included only the communications that were picked up over the telephone, which clearly meet the definition of "wire communication" in section 934.02(1)....

...1st DCA 1996) (explaining that the location of a conversation is a significant factor in determining the reasonableness of the defendant's expectation of privacy, and noting that conversations occurring inside an enclosed area or in a secluded area are more likely to fall within the definition of oral communication in section 934.02(2))....

...The term "law enforcement agency" is not defined for purposes of the act. Definitions of this term in related statutes concerning the activities of law enforcement agencies may therefore be reviewed and read with the act to determine its meaning. 9 Section 934.02 (10), Florida Statutes, defines "Law enforcement agency" as an agency of the State of Florida or a political subdivision thereof or of the United States if the primary responsibility of the agency is the prevention and detection of cri...

...5thDCA 2003). The name of (victim) in the first set of elements 2 and 3 must be the same person. There is no statutory definition for the term “electronic communication.” In the absence of case law, trial judges will have to fashion their own definition, perhaps by looking at Fla. Stat.§ 934.02(12), Fla....

circumstances justifying such expectation." Id. § 934.02(2). When a protected oral communication has been

circumstances justifying such expectation." Id. § 934.02(2). When a protected oral communication has been

...2d at 474. Because as a matter of law the officers could not have had a reasonable “expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation” as required by the wiretap statute, section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), and section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (2009), there was no probable cause to arrest appellant for violation of the wiretap statute....

...posing criminal liability]. § 934.03(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). “Intercept” is defined as “the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any . . . oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” § 934.02(3), Fla....

...by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” § 934.02(2), Fla....

...th a societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable.” State v. Smith, 641 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1994) (citation omitted) (emphasis supplied). The test to determine whether a person exhibits a subjective expectation of privacy set forth in section 934.02(2), defining “oral communication,” is substantially the same as the test enumerated in Smith v....

...Intercepting Oral Communications Arrest Appellant was also arrested for intercepting oral communications in violation of section 934.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), which generally prohibits the recording of oral communications as defined in section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (2009). Section 934.02(2) defines oral communications as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does 15 not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” § 934.02(2), Fla....

See, ss. 934.03(1)(a) and (4), Fla. Stat. 2 Section 934.02(10), Fla. Stat., defines "[l]aw enforcement

...that he did not inform the deputies he was recording the conversations and none of the deputies gave their consent to be recorded. However, Waite argued that the recorded conversations did not fall under the definition of “oral communication” as defined by section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes, because the deputies did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that such communications were not subject to interception. The State filed a traverse and demurrer admitting that at all times during the...

...“‘Oral communication’ means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” Id. § 934.02(2), Fla....

...dismiss must be reversed. Cf. Ford v. City of Boynton Beach, 323 So. 3d 215, 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (reversing summary judgment based on reasonable expectation of privacy requirement for intercepting “oral communication” in section 934.03(1)(a) and section 934.02(2)).4 B....

...“The statute protects only those ‘oral communications’ uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation of privacy under circumstances reasonably justifying such an expectation.” State v. Inciarrano, 473 So. 2d 1272, 1275 (Fla. 1985) (emphasis in original); see also § 934.02(2), Fla....

...included offense of Robbery, then Theft should be given as a lesser- included offense. “Law enforcement officer” is not defined in chapter 812, Florida Statutes, or in case law interpreting § 812.015(6), Fla. Stat. Trial judges may consult § 790.01, Fla. Stat., § 934.02, Fla....

...meeting and to require orderly behavior on the part of those attending, rules prohibiting the use of silent or nondisruptive tape recording devices would appear to be unreasonable and arbitrary and, therefore, invalid. 2 Moreover, the Legislature in s. 934.02 (1), F.S., appears to implicitly recognize the public's right to silently record public meetings. Chapter 934 , F.S., the Security of Communications Law, regulates the interception of oral communications. 3 Section 934.02 (2), F.S., however, defines "[o]ral communication" as specifically excluding "public oral communication uttered at a public meeting." 4 Therefore, I am of the opinion that a municipality may not prohibit a citizen from video recording...

...The statute in question here states “any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted ... in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts ... such communications ...” Fla.Stat. § 934.10. The term “person” is defined in Fla.Stat. § 934.02(5) to include a corporation: ‘Person’ means any employee or agent of the state or political subdivision thereof and any individual, partnership ......

...not inform the deputies he was recording the conversations, and none of the deputies gave their consent to be recorded. However, Waite argued that the recorded conversations did not fall under the definition of “oral communication” as defined by section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes, because the deputies did not have an expectation of privacy. The State filed a traverse and demurrer admitting that at all times during the recorded conversations, the deputies were acting in their official capacities and added that the deputies were using office phones and cell phones....

...a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.” Id. § 934.02(2) (emphasis added)....

...Because the deputies did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they spoke with Waite over the phone in their official capacities as law enforcement officers regarding public business, the recordings did not fall within the definition of “oral communication” in section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (2020), such that the wiretapping statute, section 934.03(1)(a), applied. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss the wiretapping charges and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion....