Florida Statute 934.09 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

F.S. 934.09 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.09 on CourtListener
Amendments to 934.09

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 934.09
Total Results: 75
United States v. Bascaro
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
United States v. Bobby Roy Dennis, Sr., Sharon Denise Cohen, Clarence Bobby Jennings, Brenda Jewell Hurley
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
United States v. Steven B. Aisenberg
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
Shaktman v. State
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).
United States v. Sylvester Anthony Domme, Jr. And Thomas Allen Domme
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
United States v. Harvey
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
Rodriguez v. State
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
United States v. Carrazana
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
In Re Grand Jury Investigation
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
Horn v. State
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
State v. Jackson
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
Shaktman v. State
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
Hudson v. State
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
State v. News-Press Pub. Co.
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
State v. McCormick
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).
Sarno v. State
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
State v. Tsavaris
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
Bagley v. State
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
State v. Shaktman
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
Wilson v. State
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)
State v. Otte
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
United States v. Aisenberg
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
Bouler v. State
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
Daniels v. State
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
Smith v. State
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
Copeland v. State
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
State v. Birs
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
State v. Aurilio
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
Jackson v. State
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
United States v. Carrazana
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
Gardner v. Bradenton Herald, Inc.
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
State v. Napoli
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
Zuppardi v. State
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
Report of Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records
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
Brugmann v. State
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
United States v. George Brown, Jeff Anderson, United States of America v. Willie Bradshaw, A/K/A Brad, Hamin Abdul Muhammad, A/K/A Anthony Keith Edwards, George Brown, Jeff Anderson
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
State Ex Rel. Kennedy v. Lee
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
Adelson v. State of Florida
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
STATE OF FLORIDA vs YAHAIRA MOJICA PHIPPS
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
JAMIE GEER v. STATE OF FLORIDA
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
Velde v. Velde
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
Savery v. McClure
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
United States v. Green
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)
State v. Rivers
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
Miller v. State
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
State v. Jones
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
Sutton v. State
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
Hernandez v. State
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
United States v. Brown
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
State v. Lockman
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
Morales v. State
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
Covello v. State
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)
P.J. v. State
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
Parker v. State
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
State v. Weedon
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
Jackson v. State
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
State v. Carney
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
Murphy v. State
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
Murphy v. State
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
State v. Albano
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
Scheider v. State
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
Vinales v. State
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
Mitchell v. State
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
Campbell v. State
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
Hicks v. State
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
Hicks v. State
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
Minkus v. State
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
State v. Barnett
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.
Quintana v. State
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
Rodriguez v. State
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
County of Dade v. Frangipane
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
In re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Evidence Obtained by Court Authorized Wiretaps
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
State v. Berjah
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
State v. Angel
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
Barnes v. State
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