CopyCited 60 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...1st DCA 1980), the First District accurately pointed out: It is now well-established in Florida law that the above constitutional prohibition [article I, section 12, Florida Constitution] against the "unreasonable interception of private communications" may be satisfied either by obtaining a warrant (under Section 934.07), or by assuring that one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, and, if consent is relied upon, such consent is evidenced by the testimony of the consenting party, subject to cross-examination, as a condition precedent to the introduction of the recording into evidence....
CopyCited 43 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14400
...ereof" to apply to a judge for an order authorizing a wire interception. Florida has chosen to implement this section by designating, among others, its chief executive officer, the Governor to authorize initial applications for monitoring. Fla.Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A....
...fficers in Florida able to apply for wiretap orders would be the county solicitors. The Governor would not qualify since he is not named in the federal statute; nor would the Attorney General, since he is not named in the Florida statute (Fla. Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A....
..." than by authorizing the justices of the Supreme Court of Florida to issue wiretap orders. III. WHETHER A VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA LOTTERY LAW IS AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH AN INTERCEPT ORDER MAY BE ISSUED UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (2) AND FLORIDA STATUTES § 934.07....
...rcepts may provide evidence of the violation of Florida Statutes §
849.09, which makes it unlawful to conduct a lottery. [11] Defendants contend that conducting a lottery is not "gambling" within the meaning of the Florida wiretap law, specifically Section
934.07 which permits wire interception for the "offense of ......
...ugs, or other crime dangerous to life, limb, or property, and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, designated in any applicable State statute authorizing such interception, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses. [2] § 934.07 Authorization for interception of wire or oral communications....
...ers games, or selling chances therein. [15] As used in 18 U.S.C. § 1955: (b) (1) "illegal gambling business" means a gambling business which (i) is a violation of a law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted. [16] Fla.Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A....
CopyCited 36 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28158
...for an order permitting wire interception. Florida’s wiretap statute contains the following provision: “The Governor, the Attorney General, or any State Attorney may authorize an application to a judge [for a wiretap order]____” Fla.Stat. Ann. § 934.07 (West Supp.1974-83)....
...denied,
421 U.S. 909 ,
95 S.Ct. 1558 ,
43 L.Ed.2d 774 (1975), is not to the contrary. The Pacheco court was faced with the prior version of Florida’s wiretap statute, which empowered the Governor to authorize applications for wiretap orders. Fla.Stat.Ann. §
934.07 (West 1973)....
CopyCited 31 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19258
...without merit. XII. FLORIDA STATE CHAPTER 934 INTERCEPT Under date of August 5, 1980, the Honorable Tom Johnson, Circuit Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Criminal Division, Palm Beach County, Florida, issued an order for a wiretap under Fla.Stat. § 934.07, to intercept communications relating to violations of Florida narcotics laws and marijuana smuggling....
...r are too dangerous. 3. Improper Authorization. Jernigan contends that since this application was made by Detective Sims, with State Attorney Bludworth authorizing Sims to apply by means of an authorization letter, the application violated Fla.Stat. § 934.07, which provides that the Governor, Attorney General or any state attorney may authorize an application to a judge....
...evidence to establish probable cause for each extension in this ongoing, continuing criminal enterprise. 5. No Authorization in Florida Statutes to Wiretap for Marijuana Offenses. Harvey argues that a comparison of 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2) and Fla.Stat. § 934.07 shows that the Florida legislature decided to omit marijuana from the offenses for which a wiretap could be obtained; that since the federal statute says "or dealing in narcotic drugs, marihuana or other dangerous drugs" while the Florida s...
CopyCited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...of the facts submitted by the applicant before a wiretap order can be issued. This section requires that the judge find: (1) probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offense enumerated *17 in § 934.07 (which includes the offense here in question); (2) probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such a wiretap; (3) that normal investigative procedures have been tried and have f...
...of." In the context of the requirements of F.S. §
934.09(3), F.S.A., this may be stated as reasonable grounds for belief that the party whose communications are to be intercepted is committing or is about to commit one of the offenses enumerated in §
934.07; that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception; and that the facilities or place involved is being used or about to be used in connection with the offense....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...The movant primarily questions denial by the Circuit Court of Volusia County of his motion to strike and suppress any and all evidence obtained in a Dade County authorized *45 wiretap during 1972, where such evidence related to crimes other than those enumerated in F.S. § 934.07, F.S.A....
...The movant wishes to suppress or preclude presentment to the grand jury of any wiretap communication involving him or which could or might tend to involve him with any offense other than those specifically authorized under the wiretap statute by F.S. § 934.07, F.S.A. Is he entitled to this sanction or protection? Answer: yes. That part of the Florida Statutes dealing with "Security of Communications", Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and more particularly F.S. § 934.07, F.S.A., authorizing interception of wire or oral communications of persons, is a statutory exception to the constitutional (federal and state) right to privacy....
...nd Larceny, Prostitution, Criminal Usury, Abortion, Bribery, Extortion, Dealing in narcotic drugs or other dangerous drugs, Or any conspiracy to commit any violation of the laws of this State relating to the crimes specifically enumerated above." (F.S. 934.07) Obviously, the statute sets the stage for the permissive use of authorized wiretaps, which otherwise are impermissible in use, directly or indirectly....
...ty, Florida, through the use of Court authorized wiretaps, during the period July 26, 1972, to August 25, 1972, and from September 4, 1972, to September 18, 1972, where such evidence relates to crimes other than the crimes specifically enumerated in Section 934.07, Florida Statutes, and the Court upon the consideration of the motion, argument of counsel and being duly advised in the premises, it is, therefore "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: "1....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 54 U.S.L.W. 2633
“narcotics or other dangerous drugs.” Fla.Stat.Ann. §
934.07. According to appellants the state omitted “marijuana”
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...erson is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. It is clear that no warrant (as authorized by Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1977)) was required for this interception made with the cooperation of informant King, because the requirements of the above quoted statute were satisfied....
...Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence. It is now well-established in Florida law that the above constitutional prohibition against the "unreasonable interception of private communications" may be satisfied either by obtaining a warrant (under Section 934.07), or by assuring that one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, and, if consent is relied upon, such consent is evidenced by the testimony of the consenting party, subject to cross-examination, as a condition precedent to the introduction of the recording into evidence....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1995 WL 48439
...TITUTE 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. at 1377. We rephrase the question to read: MUST THE STATE OF FLORIDA SEEK AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS
934.07 AND
934.09, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991), TO LAWFULLY INTERCEPT INFORMATION TRANSMITTED TO A DISPLAY PAGER THROUGH A DUPLICATE DISPLAY PAGER? We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution and answer the rephrased certified question in the affirmative....
...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). She contended that anyone who wanted to intercept such communications must follow the wiretap procedures set forth in sections
934.07 and
934.09, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...equirements in this case. Jackson,
636 So.2d at 1373, 1377. Jackson argues, as she did in the court below, that the numbers dialed into her pager are electronic communications and wiretap procedures govern the interception of these numbers. Sections
934.07 and
934.09 set out a stringent procedure that applicants must follow to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications....
...in section
934.09. An order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication requires a judicial finding of probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense listed in section
934.07, probable cause for belief that communications about the offense will be obtained through the interception, and a determination that normal investigative procedures have failed, or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous....
...nitoring a pager with a duplicate digital display pager is more intrusive than using a pen register or a trap-and-trace device. We therefore hold that any communication via a pager other than a tone-only pager requires a wiretap order under sections
934.07 and
934.09....
...(voice pagers), or electronic (all other types pagers except tone-only paging devices) communications. Strict construction of the statute requires that interception of these transmissions be made under the stringent procedures set forth in sections
934.07 and
934.09, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...Although we do not agree with the district court's *29 conclusion that information transmitted to a duplicate display pager constitutes an electronic communication, we find that the information is a communication subject to the wiretap procedures in sections
934.07 and
934.09....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Before a wiretap order can be issued, Section
934.09(3), Florida Statutes requires that the judge based upon the facts submitted by the applicant must find the existence of probable cause to believe that (1) an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offense enumerated in Section
934.07, Florida Statutes (1975); [1] (2) particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such a wiretap; and (3) the facilities from which the communications are to be intercepted are being used or are about to be u...
...Statutes (1975) has been defined by the Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. State, supra , as reasonable grounds for the belief that the party whose communications are to be intercepted is committing or is about to commit one of the offenses enumerated in Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975); that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception; and that the facilities or place involved is being used or about to be used in connection with the offense....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...*633 The respondents were convicted of conspiracy to sell illegal drugs. The evidence against them consisted principally of tapes of telephone conversations intercepted pursuant to judicial order. An assistant state attorney authorized a police investigative officer to apply for the order under section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975)....
...Section 2516, requiring application by the "principal prosecuting attorney" for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications, preclude the exercise of that power by a general class of prosecutors who are assistant state attorneys in Florida? Id. at 719. Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), provides: The Governor, the Department of Legal Affairs, or any State Attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with this chapter, a...
...ction
27.181(3), Florida Statutes (1975), allows assistant state attorneys all the powers of state attorneys, except with regard to signing informations, we should hold that the assistant in this case had the power to authorize the application under section
934.07....
...1972), aff'd
500 F.2d 1401 (3d Cir.1974); State v. Frink, 296 Minn. 57, 206 N.W.2d 664 (1973). To the extent that our decision in Angel v. State,
270 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1972), conflicts with the holding herein we recede from that case. Our electronic surveillance authorizing statute is section
934.07, set out in full above....
...Our legislature, however, "has chosen to delimit this authority even more severely than does the statute governing federal applications. The Florida statute authorizes no delegation whatever." United States v. Lanza,
341 F. Supp. 405, 408-409 (M.D.Fla. 1972). We therefore hold that section
934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), did not empower an assistant state attorney to authorize the application for wiretap in the instant case....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...r property, and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, designated in any applicable State statute authorizing such interception, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses." The enabling state legislation on the subject is Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975) which reads: "934.07 Authorization for interception of wire or oral communications....
...red to therein as the applicant. However, the application reflects that it was authorized by the state attorney, who is the principal prosecuting attorney of a political subdivision of the State of Florida as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2) and Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975)....
...was illegally obtained. In re Grand Jury Investigation,
287 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1973). [2] In State v. Angel,
261 So.2d 198 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), our sister court held that an assistant state attorney could authorize an application for a wiretap under Sec.
934.07....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...United States v. Park,
531 F.2d 754 (5th Cir.1976); see Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154,
98 S.Ct. 2674,
57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). The alleged material omission was a statement by Braswell in regard to a truckload of cigarettes that "[t]he load's not hot." Section
934.07, Florida Statutes (1977), enumerates the offenses which may justify the interception of oral or wire communications. As it pertains to this issue, Section
934.07 would authorize such interceptions only to obtain evidence concerning the theft of cigarettes or dealing in stolen cigarettes....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 44163
...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 934.07 provides that a state attorney may authorize an application to a judge for an order authorizing the interception of an oral communication by a law enforcement officer when interception may lead to the evidence of one of the criminal offenses listed therein....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...ew location. The amendment also fails to state why routine methods of surveillance could not be used at the new location. Furthermore, the authorization for the amended application for the new number signed by the state attorney which is required by section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1979), states that he has no knowledge of any previous applications made involving any of the persons referred to in the application, Bagley being one....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1995 WL 392855
...HARDING, Justice. We have for review State v. Rivers,
643 So.2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), wherein the Fifth District Court of Appeal declared a state statute invalid. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. Section
934.07, Florida Statutes (1991), part of which the district court held invalid in this case, authorizes the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications by law enforcement when the interception may provide evidence of a list of enumerated offenses....
...[5] Rivers was additionally charged with deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution. [6] The trial court granted the appellees' motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the wiretaps. The court concluded that "to the extent that [section] 934.07 permits the authorization of wiretaps to investigate prostitution not involving the use of force or any danger to life, limb, or property, or interstate commerce, it contravenes the requirements of Title 18 U.S.C....
...and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2). While Florida's counterpart is quite similar to the federal statute, it enumerates a more expansive list of offenses where wiretaps are authorized, including prostitution. § 934.07, Fla....
...l statute where the allegations of prostitution-related offenses involve violence or the threat of violence. See Millstone,
684 F. Supp. at 870-71; Shapiro, 431 N.Y.S.2d at 431-33, 409 N.E.2d at 907-08. However, under the circumstances of this case, section
934.07 cannot be read as authorizing wiretaps to investigate non-violent prostitution-related offenses without contravening the requirements of 18 U.S.C....
...Thus, we agree with the district court that the trial court properly suppressed the evidence obtained from the wiretaps in this case. For the reasons expressed above, we approve the decision below. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., concurs in result only. NOTES [1] Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1991), authorizes the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications when such interception may provide evidence of the commission of certain enumerated offenses, including "murder, kidnapping, arson, gambl...
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2004 WL 2251849
...s. The federal statute preempts any state *1187 laws concerning wiretaps, although states may enact more restrictive provisions. The State appeals State v. Fratello,
835 So.2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), [1] in which the district court declared invalid section
934.07, Florida Statutes (1999), to the extent that it authorizes law enforcement officials to intercept communications related to prostitution....
...(1999), constitute crimes "dangerous to life, limb, or property" under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2) when the predicate acts are related to prostitution. As explained below, we hold that violations of the Florida RICO statute do constitute crimes "dangerous to life, limb, or property," and therefore section 934.07's authorization of wiretaps for such crimes is consistent with the federal statute....
...On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the wiretap was not authorized under federal law. Id. at 316. II. Federal and State Wiretap Authorization The issue in this case is the validity of part of the Florida wiretap statute, § 934.07, Fla....
...It *1188 allows states to adopt similar procedures authorizing state law enforcement personnel to intercept communications in a criminal investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2) (2000). Although states are free to adopt more restrictive statutes, they cannot adopt less restrictive ones. Rivers,
660 So.2d at 1362. Section
934.07, Florida Statutes (1999), establishes the state procedures for authorizing the interception of communications....
...ions of the Florida Anti-Fencing Act; any violation of chapter 895 [RICO]; any violation of chapter 896 [money laundering]; ... or any conspiracy to commit any violation of the laws of this state relating to the crimes specifically enumerated above. § 934.07, Fla....
...The error of the courts below was in their focus on the nature of the crimes underlying the RICO allegations without regard for the separate character of the RICO offenses and the very purposes of both the federal and state wiretap provisions to fight organized crime. Accordingly, we hold that section 934.07's authorization for a judge to order the interception of communications to obtain evidence of "any violation of chapter 895" is valid and that to obtain such an order the State need not separately allege and demonstrate a danger to life, limb, or property....
...iled information in accordance with the requirements of section
934.09(1), Florida Statutes (1999). A judge may issue such an order only upon finding probable cause to believe (1) that an individual is, has, or is about to commit an offense named in section
934.07; (2) that communications relevant to the offense will be obtained; (3) that normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed or reasonably appear unlikely to succeed or are too dangerous; and (4) that the place where the intercept will occur is being used in connection with the commission of the crime....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2496, 2003 WL 403071
...to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendants lied to investigators as charged. Yet, the intercepted conversations do not support probable cause to believe the Defendants murdered their child, the only offense authorized by FLA. STAT. § 934.07 (1997)....
...affidavit. Id. at 238,
103 S.Ct. 2317. Applying this standard to electronic intercepts, an application must show probable cause exists to believe: (a) an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime enumerated in FLA. STAT. §
934.07; (b) particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception; and (c) the facilities where the oral communications are to be intercepted are to be used or have been used in the commission of such an offense....
...invalid. As required by §
934.09(1), the revised applications do not support probable cause to believe one or both of the Defendants are *1348 committing, have committed, or will commit murder, the only targeted offense permissible under FLA. STAT. §
934.07 (1997)....
...d through further electronic surveillance. V. Florida's wiretap scheme, in conformity with Title III (see 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2)), permits the state attorney to authorize an application for an intercept to a judge for specific offenses. See FLA. STAT. § 934.07 (1997)....
...Burton and Blake sought and obtained intercepts for communications pertaining to homicide, sale of a minor child, child neglect with great bodily harm, and aggravated child abuse in violation of FLA. STAT. §§
782.04,
63.212(1)(d),
827.03(3), and
827.03(2) (1997). Of these, only murder is listed in §
934.07....
...priate designation of authority). Because the orders are not invalid on their face, the Defendants must look to §
934.09(9)(a)(1) for relief by demonstrating the communications were unlawfully intercepted. That is to say, the Defendants must show §§
934.07 and
934.09(3)(a), the statutory requirements violated, occupy "a central, or even functional, role in guarding against unwarranted use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance." Chavez, 416 U.S....
...h to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendants lied to investigators as charged. Yet, the intercepted conversations do not supply probable cause to believe the Defendants murdered their child, the only offense authorized by FLA. STAT. § 934.07 (1997)....
...somewhat-intelligible, irrelevant conversations is the root of the review problem. What the government advocates is the indiscriminate use of all these intercepted conversations, irrespective of any relevancy to an authorized crime under FLA. STAT. § 934.07, to suggest something happened to the child other than what the Defendants reported to law enforcement....
...tle III, which the Florida legislature adopted, does not work in this case because the communications the state seized are either unintelligible, do not stand for the proposition the government advances, or are unrelated to the offenses described in § 934.07. For these reasons, the only plausible sanction for the seizure of communications based on applications containing non-listed offenses under § 934.07 is to suppress the fruits of all three intercepts....
...varying degrees) as outlined in §
782.04. Intercepts for other types of criminal homicides, like manslaughter, are not authorized under Florida's wiretap scheme. The Defendants concede "homicide" means "murder" for purposes of §§
934.09(3)(a) and
934.07 in this case....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...nd had failed or reasonably appeared to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. [12] Finally, we address appellants' first point regarding the authority of an Assistant State Attorney to authorize an application for a wiretap. [13] F.S. 934.07 provides that "The Governor, the Attorney General or any State Attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with this chapter, an order authorizing or approving the i...
...s pursuant to F.S.
934.09(7)(e), said: "Appellant's contention is that because the application for extension was authorized by an assistant state attorney rather than the state attorney, it is invalid. This contention of appellants is without merit. §
934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that any state attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing interception of wire communications by the Department of Criminal Law Enforcement....
...394, 544 P.2d 341]" (342 So.2d at page 570) In a footnote, the author of the McGillicuddy opinion observed: "In State v. Angel,
261 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), our sister court held that an assistant state attorney could authorize an application for a wiretap under Sec.
934.07....
...1st DCA 1979), this Court approved an application for postponement of serving inventories under the wiretap statute authorized by an Assistant State Attorney rather than the State Attorney. The federal law does not require a contrary result or mandate the invalidity of Florida Statute § 934.07....
...considerations do not reach the level of constitutional status. This is not to suggest, however, that blatant disregard for the statutory-based mandates of Title III will be countenanced... ." (e.s.) Under the foregoing authorities, Florida Statute § 934.07 is a proper implementation of Title 18, § 2516(2), and provides standards for protection of Fourth Amendment rights equivalent to, and as strict as, those of the Federal Act....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 227441
...(appellee) and Tammy Garren, Stout's former girlfriend's daughter. The state contends the trial court erred when it concluded that article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution required the police to obtain an order of authorization pursuant to section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1993) prior to the interception of the telephone conversation....
...th in Shaktman v. State, [
553 So.2d 148 (Fla.1989)] have not been met. At a minimum, the second prong set forth in that case, includes a court authorization prior to the interception, which must be in accord with the procedure set forth in Fla.Stat.
934.07, for obtaining a court-ordered interception....
...In this case, the police failed to follow this procedure, prior to intercepting and recording the Defendant's telephone conversation. This court must also note, that by the Florida Legislature not including sexual battery as a crime for which a court ordered intercept may be obtained under ss. 934.07, that the Legislature is clearly indicating that police cannot obtain authorization from a court of competent jurisdiction, to conduct an interception to gather evidence of this crime....
...ith the Defendant at his home, are in conflict with the procedural demands of Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution, which require that prior to the interception, that the police obtain court authorization pursuant to the requirements of 934.07....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...authorizing three telephone wire *12 intercepts. The asserted deficiencies were: lack of probable cause; staleness of the information in the applications; reliability of informants; applications for certain of the orders by persons not authorized by section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), and federal statutes; and failure to pursue investigative avenues other than wiretaps....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...federal and state constitutional right of privacy. In re Grand Jury Investigation,
287 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1973). As such, they must be strictly construed. Id. Appellant contends here that the application did not comport with the requirements of sections
934.07 and
934.09(1)(c) and that the order did not satisfy the requirements of sections
934.09(3)(c) and (4)(e). We agree that these four provisions were not complied with. Section
934.07 provides:
934.07 Authorization for Interception of Wire or Oral Communications....
...y of this state... . (Emphasis added.) The record before us does not reveal who authorized the application below. The state nevertheless concedes that the assistant state attorney authorized it. Appellee's brief, p. 2. It is settled, of course, that section 934.07 does not empower an assistant state attorney to authorize an application for the interception of wire or oral communications....
...the category of persons described in section
934.03(2)(c) ( e.g., an undercover police officer or informant), as here, the constitutional requirements for a search warrant need be satisfied, but the other procedures of chapter 934, such as sections
934.07 and
934.09, need not be....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...*1056 It is now settled that federal law has preempted the ability of certain state officials to authorize an application for the interception of oral communications. That federal law, referring to the "principal prosecuting attorney" (18 U.S.C. Section 2516(2)), when read in the context of Section 934.07 Florida Statutes (1975), refers to the appropriate State Attorney and precludes the exercise of that power by a general class of prosecutors known as assistant state attorneys....
...In any event, the remaining question is whether the state attorney must make the application or whether it is enough that the application has been authorized by the state attorney. In the instant case the state attorney authorized, but did not make, the application. The Florida Statute, Section 934.07, is rather clear that "any State Attorney may authorize ..." such an application....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Accordingly, we feel the trial judge was correct in granting the motions to suppress on grounds three and four. The final ground for suppression was that the wiretap authorizations involved offenses outside those provided for under federal and state law. Section 934.07 limits wiretap authorizations to investigations of: ......
...more than one year. Contra, People v. Amsden, 82 Misc.2d 91, 368 N.Y.S.2d 433 (1975). Appellant contends that the application alleged an investigation of a gambling offense of an organized nature which was carried out as a conspiracy as required by Section 934.07. Section 934.07 has no requirement that the offense involved be punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and we do not believe the federal statute requires such a provision. We believe, from a review of the sworn application, that there was sufficient preliminary information furnished to warrant an intercept authorization to investigate *77 suspected gambling offenses as designated by Section 934.07 and as authorized by the federal statute....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Weiner, Robbins & Tunkey and William R. Tunkey, Miami, for appellee. Before HENDRY, HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ. HUBBART, Judge. This is an appeal by the State of Florida from an order dismissing an information under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. § 934.07(1), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...witnesses. The petitioners' brief indicates that the investigation conducted by the petitioners occurred incident to the petitioners' authorization of an application to the court for interception of wire or oral communications pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A., which reads as follows: " Authorization for interception of wire or oral communications....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 180402
...ied on to establish probable cause were otherwise stale. She argues that before a judge can authorize law enforcement to acquire and use such a device to intercept numbers called into the original display pager, the specific requirements of sections
934.07 and
934.09, Florida Statutes (1991), must be followed....
...[1] Instead, it argues a judge need only adhere to the procedure outlined in sections
934.32 and
934.33, Florida Statutes (1991), to authorize law enforcement to use such a device. However, the state candidly concedes that if a duplicate display pager is covered by the requirements of sections
934.07 and
934.09, those requirements were not met in this case. The record supports this concession. Section
934.07 strictly defines a limited category of individuals who can authorize an application before a judge for a warrant intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications....
...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....
...Finally, to conform to the federal act, the legislature mandated for the first time that the interception of electronic communications were to be governed by the same strict requirements as the interceptions of wire and oral communications. Ch. 88-184, § 5, at 1024, and § 7, at 1025 (codified as amended at §§
934.07 and
934.09, Fla....
...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....
...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....
...TITUTE 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....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1522
...entall in full compliance with section
934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995). [1] The trial court concluded, however, that the interceptions were statutorily unauthorized because the investigation did not relate to any of the offenses specified in section
934.07, [2] which permits judicial authorization of obviously non -consensual wiretaps....
...Essentially because the trial court so mixed two separate fruits that its ruling amounts to a botanically unacceptable conclusion *547 that apples grow on orange trees or vice versa, we reverse. Briefly, it is clear that the lower court's ruling is both totally unsupported by the language of section
934.07 and directly contrary to that of section
934.03(2)(c) which indeed refers to obtaining evidence of "a" meaning "any," Izadi v....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...no reference to any such appointment. While this opinion should not be read as an encouragement for state attorneys to designate their authority in this fashion, neither do we find that this arrangement is proscribed by 18 U.S.C. Section 2516(2) or Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17801
commit one of the offenses enumerated in Florida Statute
934.07, to wit: the possession, delivery and sale
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14275
...use within the requirements of Rodriguez v. State, Fla.1974,
297 So.2d 15 , i. e. that the facility from which the communications were to be intercepted was being used or about to be used in connection with the commission of an offense enumerated in section
934.07, F.S....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6356
...Approximately nine months prior to the time they were arrested, orders for interception of communications on two telephones were entered by a judge of the criminal court of record of Dade County, on application made by an assistant state attorney of Dade County. See § 934.07 et seq., Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
...that the ruling of the trial judge thereon should be affirmed. The order of the court suppressing the evidence was based on the additional ground that a valid application for an intercept order could not be made by an assistant state attorney under § 934.07 Fla....
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1974).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
first receive authorization under s.
934.07, F.S.: "
934.07 Authorization for interception of wire or oral
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11437
...o state the authority upon which it was submitted or the identity of the person authorizing it. The wiretap authorization was signed by the state’s attorney, one of the persons authorized by law to sign authorizations for wiretap applications. See § 934.07, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16348
...Appellants contend that the sworn applications for the wiretap orders were insufficient in that they failed to show probable cause to believe that appellants were committing, had committed or were about to commit a particular offense enumerated in § 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), or probable cause for belief that communications concerning such an offense would be obtained through such interception....
...the judge is sitting if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that: (a) There is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in s. 934.07; (b) There is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception.” Appellants contend that the sworn application for wiretap serves the same function as an affidavit...
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...ida Supreme Court in In re Grand Jury Investigation,
287 So.2d 43 (Fla.1973). There, the court stated: That part of the Florida Statutes dealing with “Security of Communications”, Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and more particularly F.S. §
934.07, F.S.A., authorizing interception of wire or oral communications of persons, is a statutory exception to the constitutional (federal and state) right to privacy....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19249, 2002 WL 31875023
...yet at the same time authorized the individual states to adopt their own wiretap statutes so long as they were not less restrictive than the federal legislation. Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Florida Legislature enacted a wiretap statute, section 934.07 of the Florida Statutes (1999) 3 , which authorizes the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications as follows: 934.07....
...iolation of chapter 815; any violation of chapter 847; any violation of s.
827.071; any violation of s.
944.40; or any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any violation of the laws of this state relating to the crimes specifically enumerated above. §
934.07, Fla....
...stitution, a crime which was authorized under the Florida statute but one which was not specifically authorized under the federal statute. Upon review, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion, concluding that “to the extent that [section] 934.07 [of the Florida Statutes] permits the authori *315 zation of wiretaps to investigate prostitution not involving the use of force or any danger to life, limb, or property, or interstate commerce, it contravenes the requirements of Title 18 U.S.C....
...d on to the supreme court wherein the suppression order was again affirmed: While Florida’s counterpart is quite similar to the federal statute, it enumerates a more expansive list of offenses where wiretaps are authorized, including prostitution. § 934.07, Fla....
...statute where the allegations of prostitution-related offenses involve violence or the threat of violence. See Millstone,
684 F.Supp. at 870-71 ; Shapiro, 431 N.Y.S.2d at 431-33 , 409 N.E.2d at 907-08 . However, under the circumstances of this case, section
934.07 cannot be read as authorizing wiretaps to investigate nonviolent prostitution-related offenses without contravening the requirements of 18 U.S.C....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15702
...These numbers were frequently called from the telephone upon which authorized taps had been used. A reasonable reading of the legislative act authorizing an application for wiretaps shows that the application should be initiated by the officer or officers conducting the investigation. See Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1977)....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...ap was already signed.
As the State points out, chapter 934 identifies specific individuals who
may authorize an application for an order approving the use of a wiretap.
These individuals include, in relevant part, the Statewide Prosecutor. §
934.07(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
surveillance for prostitution- related offenses. See §
934.07, Fla. Stat. (2019); State v. Rivers,
660 So. 2d
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8009, 1994 WL 419603
...The appellees filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained through the use of the wiretap surveillance. The court granted the motions and this appeal ensued. We begin our analysis by reviewing the applicable statutory provisions relating to the interception of communications. Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1991) states in relevant part: [A]ny state attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant ......
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6849
PER CURIAM. By the appropriate provisions of Florida Appellate Rules, a certified question has been propounded to this court as follows: “Whether Chapter 934.07 of the Florida Statutes [F.S.A.], entitled Authorization for Interceptions of Wire or Oral Communications wherein the State Attorney, among others, is designated to authorize application for a Court Order permitting interception, permits a del...
...The State’s evidence against the defendant Angel is based upon telephonic conversations monitored, pursuant to an order permitting the interception of such conversations, dated April 20, 1971; that as a predicate to the entry of such order, and as required under Chapter 934.07 of the Florida Statutes [F.S.A.], an authorization for interception of wire or oral communications was executed by one Jack R. Blumenfeld (known by this Court to be an Assistant State Attorney in the office of Richard E. Gerstein, State Attorney in and for the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, although such position is not shown on the face of such authorization).” § 934.07, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., reads as follows: “934.07 Authorization for interception of wire or oral communications....
...He shall sign indictments and other official documents, except informa-tions, as assistant state attorney, and, when so signed, the same shall have the same force and effect as if signed by the state attorney.” ****** These provisions were in the Constitution and in the Statutes at the time of the enactment of § 934.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Therefore, it should readily have been apparent to the Legislature [at the time of the enactment of § 934.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.] that at least in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, if not throughout the State, Assistant State Attorneys would be entitled to authorize an interception of communication pursuant to the Section....
