Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...In that recording Sucharski's ex-live-in girlfriend Kristal Fisher called Sucharski and wanted to get her clothes and jewelry from his house. A transcript of the recording indicates that the two fought about the clothes and jewelry and about Fisher's new boyfriend. Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1999), prohibits the contents of an intercepted communication from being received in evidence in any trial "if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter." A lawful interception of commu...

...Since the tape in question was made by way of the cooperation of Mr. Jones acting under the *940 direction of law enforcement officers, the interception did not violate chapter 934, and was admissible evidence as far as the statute is concerned. See § 934.06, Fla....

...1993), which held that such secret and unauthorized tape recordings violate Florida's constitutional right of privacy as well as section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1991). [1] Thus, the district court concluded *851 that the tape recording and any evidence derived from it were inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...n is reasonable. State v. Inciarrano, 473 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1985). Because we find that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police car, section 934.03 does not apply to conversations that take place in those vehicles. Consequently, the section 934.06 prohibition against the use of intercepted oral communications as evidence is inapplicable as well....

...chapter, any person who: (a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; ... . shall be punished as provided in subsection (4). [2] Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in relevant part: Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court ......

...Inciarrano was indicted for the first-degree premeditated murder of the victim. He moved to suppress the tape of the conversation between himself and the victim on the basis that section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1981), proscribed the interception of these oral communications and section 934.06 requires that these proscribed interceptions be excluded from evidence at trial....

...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)....

...o further right upon the premises. Thus, here, if appellant ever had a privilege, it dissolved in the sound of gunfire. 447 So.2d at 389. Accordingly, we hold that because Inciarrano had no reasonable expectation of privacy, the exclusionary rule of section 934.06 does not apply....

...it was an unlawful interception of a wire communication in violation of chapter 934. The district *421 court affirmed this ruling only because it felt compelled to do so in light of this Court's decision in State v. Walls, 356 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1978). Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, or oth...

...Walls , as well as its own prior decision in State v. News Press Publishing Co., 338 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), was incorrect. In my view, the district court's rationale for its view that Dr. Feegel's recording did not amount to an interception within the contemplation of section 934.06 is convincing, and for the following reasons I would hold that the recording is admissible. Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, or oth...

...[Emphasis supplied.] Since none of the exceptions enumerated in section 934.03 apply to the present facts, if Dr. 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....

...147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959). [7] If such a conversation were unlawfully intercepted by an eavesdropper or a bugging device, it would be inadmissible as evidence in a trial, hearing before a grand jury, and other proceedings designated by statute. § 934.06, Fla....

...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....

...ant [3] on the first point and therefore declined to rule on point two. Of course, a ruling on one point is inclusive of the other in this particular case. Under consideration is F.S. Chapter 934, F.S.A., relating to Security of Communications. F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A., provides as follows: "Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, or other proceed...

...The order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or "3. The interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval." (Emphasis supplied.) The First District Court recognized that in a wiretap case under F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A., supra, the disclosure of any information derived therefrom in violation of Chapter 934 should not be received by a grand jury, but, nevertheless, concluded that the movant had no standing as a witness (called to testify before the grand jury) to move to suppress such violative information because F.S....

...If this guarantee is enforced, it tends to destroy any excitement to commit an act designed to invade or destroy the right of privacy. Notwithstanding our conclusion on this singular issue, another point remains *47 patently clear. If as per the District Court of Appeal's conclusion, F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A., supra, that no unauthorized wiretap information is to be received by a grand jury, but F.S. § 934.09(9)(a), F.S.A., supra, does not permit an aggrieved person to question it prior to indictment or information, then who supervises the plain intent and meaning of F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A., supra, to prohibit unauthorized wiretap information going to the grand jury? Obviously, someone must have that responsibility....

...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 934.06] "The suppression section of the act provides in pertinent part: `Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority may move to suppress t...

...The Supreme Court in its decision disposing of the appeal stated that the narrow question to be decided was whether witnesses were privileged to invoke the evidentiary prohibition section of the federal act, 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (the counterpart of our statute, F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A.), as a defense to the contempt charges of which they had been adjudged guilty....

...In this case, the District Court, on a factual issue, substituted its judgment for that of the trial court and, thereby, created conflict with the above cited decisions. On the merits of the appeal, we conclude that the decision of the District Court is wrong and should be reversed. Section 934.06 provides: Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications....

...tapped two telephone lines coming into the home of the parties. The wife filed motion to suppress the intercepted wire communication contents and evidence derived therefrom, relying upon Title 18, Section 2518, of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1968, and Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...e intercept. The statutes protect the conversants, not the party who makes the illegal intercept. State v. News-Press Publishing Company, 338 So.2d 1313 (2 DCA 1976) and State v. Walls, 356 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1978). In addition to the felony sanctions, section 934.06 expressly provides that no part of the contents of illegally intercepted communications and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence *244 in any proceeding....

...her in violation of Article I, sections 12 and 23, of the Florida Constitution. 2. The videotaping was an unlawful interception of an oral communication in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes, and must be excluded from evidence pursuant to section 934.06, Florida Statutes....

...of the conversation heard as a result of such unlawful eavesdropping is admissible into evidence. Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., not once but twice, prohibits the admission of the contents of such communication into evidence. Florida Statute 934.06, F.S.A., provides as follows: "Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, or other proceeding...

...The State further contends that we erred in holding that evidence illegally obtained contrary to the provisions of Chapter 934 Florida Statutes is not admissible in evidence. In that regard, we point out that it was not necessary for us to so hold. The legislature made that determination. (F.S. 934.06; F.S....

...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, 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....

...e as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. ..... "(2)(d) It is lawful under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire or oral communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception." Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), provides: "Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, *296...

...efinition 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 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), expressly prohibits the use of such electronic recording as evidence. The subject electronic recording did not fall within any of the situations permitting interception delineated in Section 934.03(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), contains no exception to the prohibition against use of the illegally intercepted wire or oral communication as evidence....

...Appellant argues that such electronic recording may not constitutionally be suppressed from evidence and that Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975), is unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to this cause. Appellant in effect requests this Court to create an exception to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), and Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...e is one society would likely not recognize as reasonable. Thus, the statement does not qualify as an "oral communication" within the meaning of chapter 934, and the prohibition against using intercepted oral communications as evidence, contained in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1993), is also not applicable....

...Following a hearing, the court entered an order dismissing the indictment. First, the court reasoned that the News-Press could not have been guilty of destroying evidence, because the tape recordings were illegal intercepts which were inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding under Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1973)....

...Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Shevin (S.D.Fla. 1976) (Case No. 75-1443-Civ-CA). Since both of the tape recordings obtained by Ms. Williams were illegal intercepts, it becomes necessary to decide whether this defendant has standing to complain. The News-Press relies upon Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1973) which reads: "934.06 Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications....

...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, Florida Statutes (1973), our Supreme Court in the case of In re Grand Jury Investigation, 287 So.2d 43 (Fla....

...illegal intercepts, not those who perpetrate them. We cannot believe that the legislature intended this law to be interpreted in such a manner as to permit a person to make an illegal tape recording and then rely upon the evidentiary prohibitions of Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, to make his own determination that it would be inadmissible so that he can then destroy *1318 it....

...We reject this argument. We find the evidence to have been obtained in accordance with the applicable provisions of chapter 934, Florida Statutes (1981); it therefore does not come within the prohibition against the use of illegally obtained evidence set forth in section 934.06....

...Thus we must look to Florida statutes and the Florida Constitution to determine whether there is any impediment to admitting evidence of the telephone conversation between Dr. Tsavaris and Dr. Feegel which Dr. Feegel recorded. The only possible statutory prohibition is Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides in part that: Whenever any wire or oral 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 ......

...Chapter 934 imposes criminal sanctions and civil liability for an unlawful interception. Exclusion from evidence is an additional remedy which cannot be imposed in the absence of a legislative enactment so requiring. People v. Livingston, 64 Mich. App. 247, 236 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.App. 1975). Section 934.06 provides that whenever a communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of that communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of Chapter 934....

...rt of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court ... if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. § 934.06, Fla....

...EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., concurs with an opinion. McDONALD, Justice, concurring. I concur. Frankly, I believe that United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), is better law than the mandatory exclusion required by section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985), but, because the statute is valid, we should follow it....

...In the instant case, because it failed to orally pronounce it at sentencing, the trial court erred in imposing the fine and it must be stricken. The written judgment for fines and costs also includes a $10 surcharge under section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2009), and a $20 court cost under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...From the foregoing, it follows that the exclusionary rule as applied to the interception of wire or oral communications by an individual (not involving government action) is based neither on the Federal nor the Florida constitution, but has its genesis within Chapter 934 as a legislatively imposed exclusionary rule. § 934.06, Fla....

...Security of Communications Act While it is equally unnecessary to address the issues raised regarding the Security of Communications Act, we feel compelled to comment on the state's use of tape-recorded conversation which has been obtained in violation of section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...reggors. She also secretly taped conversations she had in Ms. Keating's office. The tapes were then taken to the state police officer, David Locker. At the hearing on a motion to suppress the tapes, the state admitted the tapes should be suppressed. Section 934.06 prohibits the use of evidence obtained as a result of intercepted communications....

...Keating's law office on April 18, 1997, from unconsented interception and recording, is legally protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by Article I, Sections 12 and 23 of the Florida Constitution, and by sections 934.03 and 934.06, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...ants never contemplated. B. Good Faith The government recognizes the Florida Supreme Court has refused to apply Leon's good faith exception to wiretap cases. In State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628 (Fla.1989), the Florida Supreme Court reasoned FLA. STAT. § 934.06 provides a statutorily created exclusionary remedy; Leon addresses the judicially created sanction implementing the Fourth Amendment....

...nic communications were intercepted in violation of the Florida Act. We must next determine whether the improperly intercepted electronic communications may be excluded from evidence under the Act. The exclusionary provisions of the Act are found in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2003), which provides that "[w]henever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence....

...w this was accomplished. It is difficult to conceive of how this might have been done, since telephonic communications intercepted in violation of chapter 934, and the fruits thereof, are clearly inadmissible in evidence in all judicial proceedings. § 934.06, Fla....

...Appellant contends that Section 934.03(2)(d) Florida Statutes (1975), which prohibits the interception of oral or wire communication by a person unless " all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception" controls and that pursuant to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), no part of the contents of such communication could be received at trial....

...In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the telephone extension used by Miss Bentley for the above reasons was not used in the ordinary course of business; and thus, testimony concerning the contents of the intercepted communication should not have been allowed at trial, pursuant to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The only hearing that might have been relevant had there been a charge or allegation by appellant to support it would have been for the purpose of determining whether or not there was an "intercept" within the meaning of Chapter 934. If so, the evidence would have been prohibited by Section 934.06 which provides as follows: "Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, or other proce...

...a strip search obtained in violation of the statute." Id. [3] Certain statutes adopted by the Florida Legislature expressly provide—unlike section 901.211—for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory requirements. For example, section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2005), provides that the content of illegally intercepted wire or oral communications and evidence derived from such communications may not "be received in evidence in any trial" or other proceeding....

...See Article 1, sections 12 and 23, Florida Constitution. Having found a reasonable expectation of privacy, it necessarily follows that what transpired sub judice was in violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1991), and consequently, the evidence derived therefrom is inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...ny unauthorized interception of such communications and the use of the contents thereof in evidence in courts and administrative proceedings. [emphasis added] Suppression of evidence obtained from an illegally obtained wiretap is further mandated by section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985): *735 Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department ......

...lthough four years have now elapsed since the issuance of the Leon decision. Courts have consistently construed chapter 934 to compel ipso facto suppression of evidence obtained through illegal wiretaps. Reference to such exclusion for violations of section 934.06, Florida Statutes, appears in this court's opinion in Inciarrano v....

...Maynard, 783 So.2d 226, 230 (Fla.2001); Dozier v. State, 766 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). To say that the state violated section 943.23 in obtaining real time CSLI does not mean that an exclusionary rule applies to prevent the state from using any "evidence derived" from the violation. § 934.06, Fla....

...s of sections 934.07 and 934.09, Florida Statutes (1991), must be followed. Thus, she contends, since there was noncompliance with these statutory mandates, the trial court should have excluded evidence derived from the duplicate display pager under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991), when it was considering the merits of her motion....

...State, 297 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1974); Miller v. State, 619 So.2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). These statutes are exceptions to the federal and state constitutional rights to privacy and must be strictly construed. Copeland v. State, 435 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). To that end, section 934.06 specifically prohibits the use of any evidence obtained or derived from an interception of communications that violates these statutes....

...Moreover, unlike the beeper messages in Dorsey, we are dealing with a communication that Congress has found is not readily accessible to the general public. Thus, we distinguish Dorsey. As noted, the state concedes, and the record reflects, noncompliance with sections 934.07 and 934.09. Thus, under section 934.06, we must exclude any information obtained by the duplicate display pager in determining whether probable cause otherwise existed to justify issuing the search warrant against Jackson's automobile, without regard to the good faith exception of Leon....

...rmation in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation; shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).[ [2] ] § 934.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). [3] 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....

...Department made a representation and later changed its position. The trial court excluded the transcript, ruling that the Department employees had a reasonable expectation that their communications were private, and that the recording and transcript were inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes. The trial court found that the Department had been maintaining the subject property since May 22, 2007 at the latest, and that pursuant to section 95.361(1), Florida Statutes, the property vested in the Departm...

...statements did “not constitute hearsay and thus the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them.” Id. at 468-69. The Second District then rejected McDade’s argument that the trial court should have suppressed the recordings under the exclusionary rule of section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...Judge Villanti concurred in the panel’s decision regarding McDade’s hearsay argument but dissented as to resolution of McDade’s argument regarding the recordings. Id. at 475 (Villanti, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). According to Judge Villanti, section 934.06 is unambiguous and the recordings clearly fall within the statute’s plain language....

...Stat. (2010). None of the exceptions allow for the interception of conversations based on one’s status as the victim of a crime. The State does not argue that any of the exceptions listed in section 934.03(2) are applicable in this case. Section 934.06 provides that the contents of any improperly intercepted communication may not be used as evidence: -9-  Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of...

...v. Walls, 356 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1978). In Walls, “the alleged victim of extortionary threats, electronically recorded a conversation” between himself and the defendants. Id. at 295. The Court concluded that the recording was inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...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 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), expressly prohibits the use of such electronic recording as evidence. The subject electronic recording did not fall within any of the situations permitting interception delineated in Section 934.03(2), Florida Statutes (1975). 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....

...McDade did not consent to the conversations being recorded, and none of the other exceptions listed in section 934.03(2) apply. The recordings, therefore, were prohibited. Because the recordings impermissibly intercepted oral communications, the recordings are inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2010). The facts of Inciarrano are in important ways different from those in both Walls and the instant case....

...The State asserted no other basis in its brief to this Court for admitting the testimony. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying McDade’s hearsay objection. III. CONCLUSION We thus conclude that the recordings should have been suppressed under section 934.06, and the boyfriend’s testimony should have been excluded....

...mitting the deposition testimony. C. Recorded Conversation Next, Tundidor argues that the recording of his conversation with Shawn was inadmissible because it does not fall under the statutory exception for the use of secret recordings. We disagree. Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, provides that secret recordings cannot be used as evidence unless an exception applies....

...Once the conversations were recorded, the victim shared them with her boyfriend. They made digital copies of the recordings and gave them to the police. As a result, the victim was removed from the home and placed in a foster home. The State filed multiple charges against McDade. McDade moved to suppress the recordings under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...We hold that the narrow factual circumstances of this case do not fall within the statutory proscription of chapter 934, but we certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court. The standard of review for an order denying a motion to suppress evidence under section 934.06 has not been extensively discussed in prior case law....

...only to cases involving governmental action; it does not apply when the search or seizure was conducted by a private individual.” Armstrong v. State, 46 So.3d 589, 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Because McDade was attempting to invoke the protection of 934.06, we conclude that he had the initial burden of proof....

...ing such recordings. §§ 934.02(5), .03(1). Further, “[wjhenever any wire or oral 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.... ” § 934.06....

...In the trial court, the hearing was conducted like a hearing on a motion to suppress, but it was actually a preliminary hearing that should have been conducted under section 90.105, Florida Statutes (2011), to determine whether these recordings are statutorily inadmissible under section 934.06....

...protecting people from surreptitious interception of their oral communications. The policy created a prohibition of secret recordings that was enforced by both civil and criminal penalties, as well as by the statutory exclusionary rule contained is section 934.06....

determined that they were inadmissible under section 934.06; excluded their use both as substantive evidence

recognize as reasonable — the exclusionary rule of Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, does not apply. . A pathetic

...As we explain below, we conclude that McDade II is distinguishable and that the trial court's ruling should be affirmed. I. THE LIMITED FACTS IN THE RECORD Mr. Belle filed a motion to exclude the iPhone recording under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2012)....

...interception under circumstances justifying such expectation . . . ." § 934.02(2). Except "in cases of prosecution for criminal interception" under chapter 934, a recording made in violation of section 934.03 is inadmissible as evidence in any trial or legal proceeding. § 934.06....

...DISTINGUISHING MCDADE II We agree with the trial court's prediction that the supreme court's decision in McDade II would not impact the outcome in this case. Although a motion to suppress -5- or exclude evidence under section 934.06 has similarities to a motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment, it is a statutory right, and it was Mr....

7 Statutes (2021), and section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2021). 1 However, McDade

...prejudice when the officers failed to record the communication. *754 We have examined the remaining points relied upon by appellant and find them without merit. AFFIRMED. SMITH, Acting C. J., and MITCHELL, HENRY CLAY, Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . Section 934.06 prohibits the reception at trial of any evidence which was obtained in violation of Ch....

...It is alleged he wrongfully taped a conversation and wrongfully disclosed the contents of the tape to third persons. Ch. 934, Fla. Stat. (1985). He obtained an order suppressing the tapes because it is unlawful to place in evidence at trial the wrongfully intercepted tapes. Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985) says: We grant the writ and quash the order of suppression....

communications law applicable to your question. Section 934.06, F.S. 1979, provides that no part of the contents

...Caraballo was charged with grand theft for allegedly taking money from her employer and the recorded statements apparently contain admissions made by Ms. Caraballo. The trial court ruled that the statements were inadmissible because the recording violated section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2013), which prohibits the recording of oral communications without a person's consent or knowledge and the disclosing of such recordings. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress and reverse. Section 934.06 states that "[w]henever any wire or oral 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 ....

...-3- expectation of privacy do not extend to an individual's place of business."). Similarly in State v. Inciarrano, 473 So. 2d 1272, 1275 (Fla. 1985), the Florida Supreme Court held that to prevail under section 934.06, a person must establish that he not only had a subjective expectation of privacy, "but also his expectation under the circumstances must have been one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." The trial co...

result of that recording, are inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991). As to appellant’s

...We do not have to decide whether we agree or disagree with the majority in Sobel in this case, because it is factually distinguishable, as we have just explained. The recording of the conversation between A.S. and Doctor violated section 934.03. It therefore was inadmissible. Section 934.06 provides: Whenever any wire or oral 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, hearing, or other proceeding in or before...

...Garcia, 547 So.2d at 630 . Because it is a statutory mandate, the court held that the good faith exception could not apply to permit introduction of illegally intercepted communications. The prohibition of the statute was absolute. Therefore, based upon section 934.06, the tape recording is inadmissible to impeach Doctor....

...4th DCA 1993), this court held such secret and unauthorized tape recordings constitute an invasion of the right of privacy and a violation of section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1991). Therefore, the contents of the tape recording and any evidence derived therefrom are inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1991)....

under the authority of section 934.09(9)(a) and section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985) suppressed the contents

934, see ss. 934.03, 934.04, and 934.10, F.S. Section 934.06, F.S., provides: "Prohibition of use as evidence

...at the “bugging” was entirely permissible under Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). Tollett v. State, 272 So.2d 490 (Fla.1973). 1 Shayne contends, however, that the contents of the January calls should have been suppressed pursuant to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1977) because they were “derived from” an illegally intercepted telephone call from the same informant which took place on September 26, 1977....

violate the statutory exclusionary rule found in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1997). Chapter 934 prohibits

against surreptitious recordings contained in section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2016). He argued that the

...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)....

...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.” Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2019), prohibits the use of unlawfully intercepted oral communications as evidence, providing in pertinent part that “no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial ....

...therefrom are admissible in a risk protection proceeding when the recording was made by a patient during her medical consultation with her nurse without the nurse’s knowledge or consent. Because we conclude that such a recording and derivative evidence are inadmissible under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2023), we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Background Over the course of approximately five months, a patient had three appointments with th...

...After the temporary ex parte risk protection order was issued, the nurse moved to dismiss the petition or, in the alternative, to suppress all direct and derivative evidence obtained from the recording on the grounds that the admission of such evidence would violate section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2023), which prohibits the use as evidence of improperly intercepted wire or oral communications. Before ruling on the motion, the trial court held a hearing on the petition....

...epted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding . . . if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of the provisions of this chapter.” § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2023) (emphasis added). Thus, because the oral communication here was wrongfully intercepted, section 934.06 required the trial court to exclude not only direct evidence from the wire or oral communication, but also “evidence derived therefrom[.]” Id.; see also Derivative, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed....

...conversation was offered in a court in Utah (which has a different statute requiring only one party’s consent). In a Florida proceeding such as this, however, the recording and “evidence derived therefrom” are inadmissible (with limited exceptions inapplicable to this record). § 934.06, Fla....

...being requested. § 934.03(2)(g)2, Fla. Stat. (2009) (emphasis added). Communications intercepted in violation of Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, are not admissible in judicial proceedings, subject to a limited exception not applicable *715 here. See § 934.06, Fla....

...o a lawful wiretap. In an opinion issued subsequent to the trial court’s decision, the Florida Supreme Court held that the good faith exception described in Leon did not override the mandatory exclusion of evidence which is statutorily required by section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...The court determined that the properly authorized recordings were “evidence derived” from the earlier conversation recorded by Khalilian which the court found to be illegal under chapter 934, Florida Statutes. The State has appealed the suppression; we reverse. Section 934.06 makes inadmissible only “the contents of such communication and ......

...onversation even though it may be the same evidence discussed in the improperly recorded conversation. Certainly there was no prohibition against Khalilian advising the State Attorney’s Office of the initial, unrecorded extortion attempt. Nor does section 934.06 prevent the disclosure that a telephone conversation between Khalilian and appellees took place after the initial extortion attempt....

...Under the circumstances of this case, it would have been irresponsible if the officer had not authorized the subsequent recordings even if the original telephone conversation had not been taped. Whether we consider the authorized recordings as inevitable discovery or as discovery not prohibited by section 934.06 because the authorization was not based on the contents of the improperly recorded conversation, we find the trial court was in error in suppressing the subsequent tapes and reverse....

...’s motion for reduction of sentence was an abuse of discretion. We affirm on both points. Although the warrantless electronic surveillance of the defendant’s conversations was in violation of both Article I, § 12 of the Florida Constitution and § 934.06, Florida Statutes, this case does not involve the admission of either the tapes of those conversations or testimony by persons who were monitoring the conversations....

proceeding, including a criminal trial. See id. § 934.06. Here, Mother recorded her conversation with Smith

proceeding, including a criminal trial. See id. § 934.06. Here, Mother recorded her conversation with Smith

...any wire, oral, or electronic communication.” § 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2018). Unless all parties to the communication consent, or the interception is otherwise authorized by law, an interception made in violation of the wiretap law is generally inadmissible as evidence in any trial or legal proceeding. § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2018). When a communication has been unlawfully intercepted, the aggrieved party may move to suppress the contents of the interception or any evidence derived from it. See §§ 934.06, 2 934.09(10)(a), Fla....

§ 2515 (the counterpart of our statute, F.S. § 934.06, F.S.A.), as a defense to the contempt charges

...Miller argues that the subpoena was based in part on an illegal wiretap under chapter 934, Florida Statutes (1991), and, therefore, he should be allowed to litigate his illegal wiretap claim prior to answering questions. We agree with Miller and reverse the trial court’s contempt order. Section 934.06 prohibits the use of any information obtained from wire or oral communications as evidence if the use of such information violates chapter 934....

...grand jury ... if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.” This view was adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 287 So.2d 43 (Fla.1973) which considered the Florida wiretap statute. Section 934.06 specifically states that evidence obtained as a result of violation of Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, may not be presented for a grand jury’s consideration....