|
|
The 2024 Florida Statutes
(including 2025 Special Session C)
|
|
|
|
|
F.S. 934.09934.09 Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.—(1) Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication under ss. 934.03-934.09 shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall state the applicant’s authority to make such application. Each application shall include the following information:(a) The identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application and the officer authorizing the application. (b) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his or her belief that an order should be issued, including:1. Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed. 2. Except as provided in subsection (11), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which, or the place where, the communications are to be intercepted. 3. A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted. 4. The identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted. (c) A full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. (d) A statement of the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained and, if the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been first obtained, a particular description of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter. (e) A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any judge for authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire, oral, or electronic communications involving any of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken by the judge on each such application. (f) When the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain such results. (2) The judge may require the applicant to furnish additional testimony or documentary evidence in support of the application. (3) Upon such application, the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing or approving interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting, and outside such jurisdiction but within the State of Florida in the case of a mobile interception device authorized by the judge within such jurisdiction, 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 an offense as provided in s. 934.07. (b) There is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception. (c) Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. (d) Except as provided in subsection (11), there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person. (4) Each order authorizing or approving the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication shall specify:(a) The identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted. (b) The nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place where, authority to intercept is granted. (c) A particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates. (d) The identity of the agency authorized to intercept the communications and of the person authorizing the application. (e) The period of time during which such interception is authorized, including a statement as to whether or not the interception shall automatically terminate when the described communication has been first obtained. An order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall, upon the request of the applicant, direct that a provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person shall furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that such service provider, landlord, custodian, or person is according the person whose communications are to be intercepted. The obligation of a provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service under such an order may include, but is not limited to, conducting an in-progress trace during an interception, or providing other assistance to support the investigation as may be specified in the order. Any provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person furnishing such facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the applicant for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such facilities or assistance. (5) No order entered under this section may authorize or approve the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization or in any event longer than 30 days. Such 30-day period begins on the day on which the agent or officer of the law enforcement agency first begins to conduct an interception under the order or 10 days after the order is entered, whichever occurs earlier. Extensions of an order may be granted but only upon application for an extension made in accordance with subsection (1) and upon the court making the findings required by subsection (3). The period of extension shall be no longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was granted and in no event for longer than 30 days. Every order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under ss. 934.03-934.09, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective or in any event in 30 days. If the intercepted communication is in code or foreign language and an expert in that foreign language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception. An interception under ss. 934.03-934.09 may be conducted in whole or in part by government personnel or by an individual operating under a contract with the government, acting under the supervision of an agent or officer of the law enforcement agency authorized to conduct the interception. (6) Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to ss. 934.03-934.09, the order may require reports to be made to the judge who issued the order showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for continued interception. Such reports shall be made at such intervals as the judge may require. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer specially designated by the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney acting under this chapter, who reasonably determines that:(a) An emergency exists that:1. Involves immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person, the danger of escape of a prisoner, or conspiratorial activities threatening the security interest of the nation or state; and 2. Requires that a wire, oral, or electronic communication be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained; and (b) There are grounds upon which an order could be entered under this chapter to authorize such interception may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within 48 hours after the interception has occurred or begins to occur. In the absence of an order, such interception shall immediately terminate when the communication sought is obtained or when the application for the order is denied, whichever is earlier. If such application for approval is denied, or in any other case in which the interception is terminated without an order having been issued, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of s. 934.03(4), and an inventory shall be served as provided for in paragraph (8)(e) on the person named in the application. (8)(a) The contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by any means authorized by ss. 934.03-934.09 shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. The recording of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication under this subsection shall be kept in such a way as will protect the recording from editing or other alterations. Immediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof, such recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his or her directions. 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, or that judge’s successor in office, and in any event shall be kept for 10 years. Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of s. 934.08(1) and (2) for investigations. (b) 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, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom under s. 934.08(3), as required by federal law. (c) Applications made and orders granted under ss. 934.03-934.09 shall be sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders shall be wherever the judge directs. As required by federal law, such applications and orders shall be disclosed only upon a showing of good cause before a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall not be destroyed except on order of the issuing or denying judge, or that judge’s successor in office, and in any event shall be kept for 10 years. (d) Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punished as contempt of the issuing or denying judge. (e) Within a reasonable time but not later than 90 days after the termination of the period of an order or extensions thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his or her discretion to be in the interest of justice, an inventory which shall include notice of:1. The fact of the entry of the order or the application. 2. The date of the entry and the period of authorized, approved, or disapproved interception, or the denial of the application. 3. The fact that during the period wire, oral, or electronic communications were or were not intercepted. The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may make available to such person or the person’s counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communications, applications, and orders as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. On an ex parte showing of good cause to a judge of competent jurisdiction, the serving of the inventory required by this paragraph may be postponed. (9) As required by federal law, the contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding unless each party, not less than 10 days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the court order and accompanying application under which the interception was authorized or approved. This 10-day period may be waived by the judge if he or she finds that it was not possible to furnish the party with the above information 10 days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving such information. (10)(a) 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 the contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that:1. The communication was unlawfully intercepted; 2. 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. Such motion shall be made before the trial, hearing, or proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make such motion or the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion. If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09. The judge, upon the filing of such motion by the aggrieved person, may make available to the aggrieved person or his or her counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communication or evidence derived therefrom as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. (b) In addition to any other right to appeal, the state shall have the right to appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress made under paragraph (a) or the denial of an application for an order of approval if the attorney shall certify to the judge or other official granting such motion or denying such application that the appeal is not taken for purposes of delay. Such appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the date the order was entered and shall be diligently prosecuted. (c) The remedies and sanctions described in ss. 934.03-934.10 with respect to the interception of electronic communications are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for violations of those sections involving such communications. (11) The requirements of subparagraph (1)(b)2. and paragraph (3)(d) relating to the specification of the facilities from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted do not apply if:(a) In the case of an application with respect to the interception of an oral communication:1. The application is by an agent or officer of a law enforcement agency and is approved by the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney. 2. The application contains a full and complete statement as to why such specification is not practical and identifies the person committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted. 3. The judge finds that such specification is not practical. (b) In the case of an application with respect to a wire or electronic communication:1. The application is by an agent or officer of a law enforcement agency and is approved by the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney. 2. The application identifies the person believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant makes a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the person’s actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility or that the person whose communications are to be intercepted has removed, or is likely to remove, himself or herself to another judicial circuit within the state. 3. The judge finds that such showing has been adequately made. 4. The order authorizing or approving the interception is limited to interception only for such time as it is reasonable to presume that the person identified in the application is or was reasonably proximate to the instrument through which such communication will be or was transmitted. Consistent with this paragraph, a judge of competent jurisdiction may authorize interception within this state, whether the interception is within or outside the court’s jurisdiction, if the application for the interception makes a showing that some activity or conspiracy believed to be related to, or in furtherance of, the criminal predicate for the requested interception has occurred or will likely occur, or the communication to be intercepted or expected to be intercepted is occurring or will likely occur, in whole or in part, within the jurisdiction of the court where the order is being sought. (12) If an interception of a communication is to be carried out pursuant to subsection (11), such interception may not begin until the facilities from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted is ascertained by the person implementing the interception order. A provider of wire or electronic communications service that has received an order as provided under paragraph (11)(b) may petition the court to modify or quash the order on the ground that the interception cannot be performed in a timely or reasonable fashion. The court, upon notice to the state, shall decide such a petition expeditiously. History.—s. 9, ch. 69-17; s. 2, ch. 78-376; s. 7, ch. 88-184; s. 7, ch. 89-269; s. 1, ch. 94-101; s. 92, ch. 95-211; s. 1584, ch. 97-102; s. 11, ch. 2000-369; ss. 2, 3, ch. 2001-359; ss. 4, 5, ch. 2002-72.
| |
Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 934.09
Total Results: 75
742 F.2d 1335
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 1, 1984 | Docket: 66200332
Cited 236 times | Published
requirement common to the Florida and federal statutes. § 934.09(l)(c), Fla.Stats.; 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). Before
786 F.2d 1029, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24069
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 14, 1986 | Docket: 580336
Cited 99 times | Published
F.2d at 1347-48;
see
Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.09(l)(c) (West 1973); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). A mere
358 F.3d 1327, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1858, 2004 WL 225538
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 6, 2004 | Docket: 212991
Cited 85 times | Published
authorization, as required by Florida Statute § 934.09(5) (1997); and (9) that the codnty detectives
553 So. 2d 148, 1989 WL 120852
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 1989 | Docket: 1675568
Cited 36 times | Published
interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication. § 934.09(6), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988).
753 F.2d 950, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28158
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 21, 1985 | Docket: 598791
Cited 36 times | Published
F.2d at 1347-48;
see
Fla. Stat.Ann. § 934.09(l)(c) (West 1973); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). A mere
560 F. Supp. 1040, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19258
District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 1983 | Docket: 965461
Cited 31 times | Published
insufficient probable cause in accordance with Fla.Stat. § 934.09(3) to issue the order. As in the federal statute
297 So. 2d 15
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1974 | Docket: 1510434
Cited 28 times | Published
with these issues in turn.
PROBABLE CAUSE
F.S. § 934.09, F.S.A. provides the procedure under which a wiretap
921 F.2d 1557, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1180
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 30, 1991 | Docket: 512064
Cited 24 times | Published
B. Probable Cause
28
Section 934.09(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that issuance
287 So. 2d 43
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 1973 | Docket: 1170844
Cited 21 times | Published
violation of this chapter." (Emphasis supplied.)
F.S. § 934.09(9)(a), F.S.A., provides as follows:
"Any aggrieved
298 So. 2d 194
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1974 | Docket: 1439301
Cited 14 times | Published
would be in violation of this chapter."
Florida Statute 934.09(8), F.S.A. provides in material part as
650 So. 2d 24, 1995 WL 48439
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1995 | Docket: 1703051
Cited 12 times | Published
enforcement agency follows the wiretap procedures in section 934.09. An order authorizing the interception of wire
529 So. 2d 711, 1988 WL 26257
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 17, 1988 | Docket: 2515793
Cited 11 times | Published
connection with these offenses as required by section 934.09(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1983).[14]
*721 In
368 So. 2d 899
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 1979 | Docket: 1389408
Cited 11 times | Published
through the court-ordered wiretap pursuant to Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1975) on the grounds of
338 So. 2d 1313, 2 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1240
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 1976 | Docket: 1511834
Cited 10 times | Published
violation of this chapter."
On the other hand, Section 934.09(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1973) provides that
719 So. 2d 1220, 1998 WL 653600
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1998 | Docket: 151519
Cited 9 times | Published
recordings shall be wherever the judge orders." § 934.09(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).
424 So. 2d 829
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1982 | Docket: 1297033
Cited 9 times | Published
and did not meet the standards set out in Section 934.09(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), concerning
382 So. 2d 56
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1980 | Docket: 1255198
Cited 9 times | Published
[7] Chapter 934 contains the same provision. § 934.09(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1979). The words "intercept
397 So. 2d 1036
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1981 | Docket: 1357215
Cited 8 times | Published
State, 377 So.2d 237 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
Both section 934.09(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and its federal
389 So. 2d 1045
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1980 | Docket: 1282018
Cited 8 times | Published
(holding that the custody and seal provisions of Section 934.09 do not apply to consent interceptions which
377 So. 2d 237
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 28, 1979 | Docket: 423656
Cited 7 times | Published
with the procedural requirements set out in Section 934.09(1)(c), Fla. Stat., and 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c)
887 So. 2d 1186, 2004 WL 2251849
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 2004 | Docket: 466590
Cited 6 times | Published
information in accordance with the requirements of section 934.09(1), Florida Statutes (1999). A judge may issue
247 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2496, 2003 WL 403071
District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2003 | Docket: 2517956
Cited 6 times | Published
commission of such an offense. See FLA. STAT. § 934.09(3)(a), (b), and (d).
IV.
A. The initial application
389 So. 2d 1197
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1980 | Docket: 1683184
Cited 6 times | Published
wiretap within the ninety day period provided by section 934.09(7)(e), Florida Statutes (1977); (3) that the
381 So. 2d 707
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 1979 | Docket: 2486869
Cited 6 times | Published
appeared to be unlikely to succeed if tried.
F.S. 934.09 sets forth the procedure for interception of
438 So. 2d 10
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 1983 | Docket: 1731774
Cited 5 times | Published
failed or are unlikely to succeed, required by section 934.09(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1975), is made if
435 So. 2d 842
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1983 | Docket: 1328498
Cited 5 times | Published
the application did not indicate pursuant to section 934.09(1)(c) whether law enforcement officials tried
394 So. 2d 1054
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1981 | Docket: 1692272
Cited 5 times | Published
failed or were too dangerous, as required by Section 934.09(3) Florida Statutes (1979).
We conclude that
366 So. 2d 71
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1978 | Docket: 1228428
Cited 5 times | Published
Several of the reports required to be filed by Section 934.09(6), Florida Statutes, were not filed by the
636 So. 2d 1372, 1994 WL 180402
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1994 | Docket: 1361718
Cited 3 times | Published
enforcement officer is not included in this group.
Section 934.09 sets out the stringent procedures that must
921 F.2d 1557, 1991 WL 2188
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 30, 1991 | Docket: 66260275
Cited 3 times | Published
resulting error was harmless.
B. Probable Cause
Section 934.09(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that issuance
413 So. 2d 10, 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1251
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 1982 | Docket: 1344805
Cited 3 times | Published
of wire or oral communications pursuant to section 934.09(7), Florida Statutes (1977). The Herald alleged
373 So. 2d 933
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1979 | Docket: 1772592
Cited 3 times | Published
State in accordance with the provisions of Section 934.09(7)(a), (b), Florida Statutes (1977).
2. The
367 So. 2d 601
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 1978 | Docket: 1330153
Cited 3 times | Published
communications, on grounds of non-compliance with Section 934.09(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1975), and to compel
825 So. 2d 889, 2002 WL 351500
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2002 | Docket: 1312459
Cited 2 times | Published
wire or oral communication made pursuant to Section 934.09, Florida Statutes. They shall not be destroyed
117 So. 3d 39, 2013 WL 2494244, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9297
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 2013 | Docket: 60232659
Cited 1 times | Published
would be in violation of this chapter. ...
Section 934.09(10)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), additionally
862 F.2d 1482
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 11, 1989 | Docket: 1926924
Cited 1 times | Published
all relevant aspects, identical with the Florida statute, 934.09(1)(a-f). Both statutes require that each
274 So. 2d 881
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1973 | Docket: 1676520
Cited 1 times | Published
in addition to the rigid requirement of Florida Statute, 934.09, F.S.A., I would borrow the case law relating
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 2025 | Docket: 70240967
Published
of wire, oral, or electronic communications.”
§ 934.09(3), Fla. Stat. In short, the ex parte communications
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2022 | Docket: 65654687
Published
derived from unlawful wiretaps in
violation of section 934.09, Florida Statutes (2021). Following a hearing
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 2018 | Docket: 6366277
Published
se.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 934.09(10)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004); Johnson v. State, 60
867 So. 2d 501, 2004 WL 360881
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 2004 | Docket: 1386552
Published
1982)(finding that the term "proceeding" under section 934.09(8) included all adversary type hearings, including
790 So. 2d 1261, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11361, 2001 WL 908534
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2001 | Docket: 64807288
Published
above because it violates the provisions of section 934.09 setting forth the means of obtaining wiretapping
40 F.3d 1167, 1994 WL 684514
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 27, 1994 | Docket: 64019133
Published
offense enumerated in s. 934.07.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.09(3)(a) (West Supp. 1994). Cf 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(a)
643 So. 2d 3, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8009, 1994 WL 419603
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1994 | Docket: 64751210
Published
wiretap surveillance. As such, pursuant to section 934.09(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes, McQue filed
619 So. 2d 9, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4668, 1993 WL 130968
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 1993 | Docket: 64696516
Published
information obtained in the illegal wiretap.
Section 934.09(8) states:
The contents of any intercepted
562 So. 2d 740, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3115, 1990 WL 58281
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 1990 | Docket: 64651030
Published
interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. Section 934.09(9)(a) permits any aggrieved person to bring
556 So. 2d 1211, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 905, 1990 WL 12747
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 1990 | Docket: 64648166
Published
with the commission of” an authorizing offense. § 934.09(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985) (emphasis supplied). See
540 So. 2d 881, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 670, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1364, 1989 WL 22509
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 1989 | Docket: 64641364
Published
application fully complied with the requirements of section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1987). On that same day
862 F.2d 1482
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 11, 1989 | Docket: 66240659
Published
all relevant aspects, identical with the Florida statute, 934.-09(l)(a-f). Both statutes require that each
522 So. 2d 482, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 699, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1040, 1988 WL 22177
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 1988 | Docket: 64633671
Published
review of an order which under the authority of section 934.09(9)(a) and section 934.06, Florida Statutes
513 So. 2d 695, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2160, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12152
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 1987 | Docket: 64629933
Published
against whom the interception was directed. See § 934.09(9)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). At the least, the witness
462 So. 2d 1206, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 331, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12301
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1985 | Docket: 64609621
Published
by Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes. This argument is without merit because Section 934.09(l)(c)
453 So. 2d 470, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14257
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 1984 | Docket: 64606106
Published
of the numbers which the trace identified. Section 934.09(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), provides for
444 So. 2d 1055, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11437
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 1984 | Docket: 64602567
Published
other investigative procedures as required by Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).1
Chapter 934
425 So. 2d 125, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22257
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 1982 | Docket: 64594638
Published
probable cause, signed and issued the order.
Section 934.09(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1981) requires that
416 So. 2d 853, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20461
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 8, 1982 | Docket: 64591144
Published
trial court refused to require disclosure under § 934.09(8), Fla.Stat. (1981) of the court order and accompanying
407 So. 2d 340, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21948
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 1981 | Docket: 64586783
Published
acquired under a wiretap. issued pursuant to Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1979). The trial court granted
402 So. 2d 1265, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20729
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 1981 | Docket: 64584823
Published
more than that. The probable cause required by Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1979), has not been shown
402 So. 2d 1265, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20729
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 1981 | Docket: 64584823
Published
more than that. The probable cause required by Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1979), has not been shown
394 So. 2d 1026, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18727
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 1981 | Docket: 64580802
Published
least ten days prior to the hearing pursuant to Section 934.09(8), Florida Statutes. The court granted the
389 So. 2d 251, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17838
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1980 | Docket: 64578440
Published
seeking court authorization for the interception.
§ 934.09(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1977) requires that any application
374 So. 2d 570, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15702
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 1979 | Docket: 64571680
Published
communications entered under author*571ity of Section 934.09, Florida Statutes (1977). In this regard, it
381 So. 2d 1066, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16348
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 1979 | Docket: 64575216
Published
or postponement of serving of inventories under § 934.09(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1975). The assistant
365 So. 2d 751, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17157
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 1978 | Docket: 64567731
Published
Herron’s testimony should have been suppressed1 since § 934.09(7)(a)2 requires that once an *753interception
359 So. 2d 475, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16065
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1978 | Docket: 64564815
Published
court on motion of Appellee under Florida Statute § 934.09(7)(e).1 The grounds stated in Appellee’s motions
359 So. 2d 475, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16065
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1978 | Docket: 64564815
Published
court on motion of Appellee under Florida Statute § 934.09(7)(e).1 The grounds stated in Appellee’s motions
356 So. 2d 833, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15062
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 1978 | Docket: 64563562
Published
feel the affidavit sufficiently complies with Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes. The pertinent portion
354 So. 2d 422, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 14879
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 1978 | Docket: 64562502
Published
Section 934.01-10, Florida Statutes (1976).
. Section 934.09(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1976).
. Id.
352 So. 2d 587, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17112
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1977 | Docket: 64561555
Published
within the ninety day period provided for by Section 934.09(7)(e), Florida Statutes (1975). This statute
298 So. 2d 205, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8867
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 1974 | Docket: 64540402
Published
the wiretap minimization requirements of F.S. § '934.09(5), the judgments are hereby reversed on the authority
281 So. 2d 238, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7640
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 1973 | Docket: 64533750
Published
had failed to comply with the requirement of § 934.-09(8) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. excluding evidence derived
276 So. 2d 234, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6915
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 6, 1973 | Docket: 64531719
Published
“aggrieved” persons within the purview of Section 934.-09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; that the orders
266 So. 2d 696, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6356
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 1972 | Docket: 64527642
Published
affidavits so stating were filed.
The statute, by § 934.09(7)(e), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that within
261 So. 2d 198, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6849
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 1972 | Docket: 64525565
Published
authority from a judicial officer pursuant to § 934.09, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., and it is assumed that any
248 So. 2d 660, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6559
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 1971 | Docket: 64520736
Published
for inspection under Chapter 934 F.S. F.S. Section 934.-09(7) (e) (3) F.S.A. provides:
“The judge, upon
