Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 934.08 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 934.08 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 934.08 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 934.08

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 934
SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS; SURVEILLANCE
View Entire Chapter
934.08 Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications.
(1) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom may disclose such contents to:
(a) The Department of Legal Affairs for use in investigations or proceedings pursuant to s. 812.035, part II of chapter 501, chapter 542, or chapter 895, to any attorney authorized by law to investigate and institute any action on behalf of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, or to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer or person making or receiving the disclosure.
(b) Any state or federal law enforcement official, state or federal intelligence official, state or federal protective services official, federal immigration official, state or federal defense official, or state or federal security official to the extent that the contents or evidence includes foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, as defined in 50 U.S.C. s. 401a, or foreign intelligence information, as defined in this chapter, in order to assist the official who receives that information in performing his or her official duties. Any state or federal official who receives information under this subsection may use that information only as necessary in conducting official duties and is subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.
(2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom may use such contents to the extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of her or his official duties.
(3) Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, or by the laws of any other state or the United States, any information concerning a wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom, intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, may disclose the contents of that communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any criminal proceeding in any court of the state or of the United States; in any grand jury proceedings; in any proceeding pursuant to s. 812.035, part II of chapter 501, chapter 542, or chapter 895; in any investigation or proceeding in connection with the Judicial Qualifications Commission; or in any other proceeding or investigation held under the authority of the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, if such testimony is otherwise admissible.
(4) No otherwise privileged wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this chapter shall lose its privileged character, provided that a communication otherwise lawfully intercepted pursuant to this chapter is not privileged when such communication is in furtherance of the commission of a crime.
(5) When an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications in the manner authorized herein, intercepts wire, oral, or electronic communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order of authorization or approval, the contents thereof and evidence derived therefrom may be disclosed or used as provided in subsections (1) and (2). Such contents and any evidence derived therefrom may be used under subsection (3) when authorized or approved by a judge of competent jurisdiction when such judge finds on subsequent application that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Such application shall be made as soon as practicable.
History.s. 8, ch. 69-17; s. 2, ch. 72-294; s. 1, ch. 73-361; s. 6, ch. 88-184; s. 6, ch. 89-269; s. 1583, ch. 97-102; s. 6, ch. 2002-72.

F.S. 934.08 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.08 on CourtListener

Amendments to 934.08


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 934.08

Total Results: 8  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

United States v. Lanza, 341 F. Supp. 405 (M.D. Fla. 1972).

Cited 43 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14400

...court orders ten days beforehand. At the outset, it should be observed that both the federal and state wiretap statutes explicitly provide for disclosure of such evidence to state and federal grand juries. 18 U.S.C. § 2517(3); [25] Florida Statutes § 934.08(3), F.S.A....
...The legislative history shows, however, that the change was intended to authorize disclosure in civil as well as criminal proceedings, not to destroy the distinction between court proceedings and grand jury hearings. Senate Report No. 91-1549, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News, p. 4036 (1970). [26] Fla.Stat. § 934.08, F.S.A....
Copy

United States v. Harvey, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1983).

Cited 31 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19258

...Marion, supra, 535 F.2d at 702; see United States v. Nelligan, 573 F.2d 251, 253 (5th Cir.1978). In the case sub judice, the provisions of the Florida state wiretap act and Title III relating to authorization for disclosure are nearly identical. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 2517(5) with Fla.Stat. § 934.08(5)....
Copy

Sarmiento v. State, 371 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Cited 25 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...nterception" of the defendant's private communications within the meaning of Article I, Section 12, of the Florida Constitution. The state argues in effect that Hajdu is no longer good law because the subsequent passage of Sections 934.03(2)(c), [1] 934.08(3), [2] Florida Statutes (1977) impliedly overruled this decision by authorizing that electronic eavesdropping conducted in this case....
...in any criminal proceeding in any court of the state or of the United States in any grand jury proceedings, or in any investigation or proceeding in connection with the judicial qualifications commission, if such testimony is otherwise admissible." § 934.08(3), Fla....
Copy

Palm Beach Newspapers v. Burk, 471 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1435

...about the operation of their government, including the Judicial Branch." Id., at 584, 100 S.Ct. at 2831 (Stevens, J., concurring). [9] Some proceedings are closed by statute. For example see Florida Statutes, Section 905.24 (grand jury proceedings); Section 934.08 (information gained through wiretaps)....
Copy

The Florida Bar v. McClure, 575 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1991).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 128, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 94, 1991 WL 6537

...n is inapplicable in bar discipline proceedings, The Florida Bar v. Lancaster, 448 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 1984), McClure argues that electronically intercepted evidence is inadmissible in such proceedings because its use is not affirmatively authorized by section 934.08, Florida Statutes (1981)....
Copy

United States v. Aisenberg, 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003).

Cited 6 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2496, 2003 WL 403071

...Neither Congress nor the Florida legislature intended to prohibit this. Indeed, the wiretap schemes make clear that Congress and the Florida legislature anticipated authorities would intercept privileged communications pursuant to a valid wiretap order. See 18 U.S.C. § 2517(4); FLA. STAT. § 934.08(4) (1997)....
Copy

State v. Napoli, 373 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...Custody of the recordings shall be wherever the judge orders. They shall not be destroyed except upon an order of the issuing or denying judge and in any event shall be kept for ten years. Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of § 934.08(1) and (2) for investigations....
...The presence of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or disclosure of the contents of any wire or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom under § 934.08(3)....
Copy

Lomelo v. Schultz, 422 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22154

judicial qualifications commission investigation. Section 934.08(3). The statute clearly creates a civil cause

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.