The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS

Chapter 934
SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS; SURVEILLANCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 934.07

934.07 Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.—

(1) The Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or any state attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with ss. 934.03-934.09 an order authorizing or approving the interception of, wire, oral, or electronic communications by:

(a) The Department of Law Enforcement or any law enforcement agency as defined in s. 934.02 having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, arson, gambling, robbery, burglary, theft, dealing in stolen property, criminal usury, bribery, or extortion; any felony violation of ss. 790.161-790.166, inclusive; any violation of s. 787.06; any violation of chapter 893; any violation of the provisions of the Florida Anti-Fencing Act; any violation of chapter 895; any violation of chapter 896; any violation 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 in this paragraph.

(b) The Department of Law Enforcement, together with other assisting personnel as authorized and requested by the department under s. 934.09(5), for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of any offense that may be an act of terrorism or in furtherance of an act of terrorism or evidence of any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any such violation.

(2)(a) If, during the course of an interception of communications by a law enforcement agency as authorized under paragraph (1)(a), the law enforcement agency finds that the intercepted communications may provide or have provided evidence of the commission of any offense that may be an act of terrorism or in furtherance of an act of terrorism, or evidence of any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any such violation, the law enforcement agency shall promptly notify the Department of Law Enforcement and apprise the department of the contents of the intercepted communications. The agency notifying the department may continue its previously authorized interception with appropriate minimization, as applicable, and may otherwise assist the department as provided in this section.

(b) Upon its receipt of information of the contents of an intercepted communications from a law enforcement agency, the Department of Law Enforcement shall promptly review the information to determine whether the information relates to an actual or anticipated act of terrorism as defined in this section. If, after reviewing the contents of the intercepted communications, there is probable cause that the contents of the intercepted communications meet the criteria of paragraph (1)(b), the Department of Law Enforcement may make application for the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications consistent with paragraph (1)(b). The department may make an independent new application for interception based on the contents of the intercepted communications. Alternatively, the department may request the law enforcement agency that provided the information to join with the department in seeking an amendment of the original interception order, or may seek additional authority to continue intercepting communications under the direction of the department. In carrying out its duties under this section, the department may use the provisions for an emergency interception provided in s. 934.09(7) if applicable under statutory criteria.

(3) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:

(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or

2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and

(b) Is intended to:

1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;

2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.

History.—s. 7, ch. 69-17; ss. 11, 20, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 42, ch. 73-334; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 15, ch. 77-342; s. 33, ch. 79-8; s. 5, ch. 88-184; s. 5, ch. 89-269; s. 14, ch. 91-33; s. 10, ch. 2000-369; s. 1, ch. 2001-359; s. 3, ch. 2002-72; s. 10, ch. 2012-97; s. 115, ch. 2019-167.

F.S. 934.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 934.07 on Casetext

Amendments to 934.07

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 934.07

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 934.07.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

T. BROWN, Jr. v. MASSACHUSETTS,, 950 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D. Mass. 2013)

. . . J §§ 934.06-934.07). . . .

HENTZ, v. STATE, 62 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. JOHNSON, D. Jr., 281 F. App'x 909 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 934.07(l)(a). . . .

O BRIEN, v. O BRIEN,, 899 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07 . . .

STATE v. OTTE,, 887 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2004)

. . . Fratello, 835 So.2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), in which the district court declared invalid section 934.07 . . . Florida RICO statute do constitute crimes “dangerous to life, limb, or property,” and therefore section 934.07 . . . Wiretap Authorization The issue in this case is the validity of part of the Florida wiretap statute, § 934.07 . . . Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1999), establishes the state procedures for authorizing the interception . . . cause to believe (1) that an individual is, has, or is about to commit an offense named in section 934.07 . . .

I. FIGUEROA, v. STATE, 870 So. 2d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . the court considered whether the State was required to seek court authorization pursuant to sections 934.07 . . . appellant’s display pager without seeking or receiving the court authorization required by sections 934.07 . . . any communication via a pager other than a tone-only pager requires a wire tap order under sections 934.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. AISENBERG J., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 934.07 (1997). . . . Stat. § 934.07 (1997). . . . Stat. § 934.07 (1997). . . . Of these, only murder is listed in § 934.07. . . . Stat. § 934.07 (1997). . . .

STATE v. FRATELLO, 835 So. 2d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Florida Legislature enacted a wiretap statute, section 934.07 . . . (1999), which authorizes the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications as follows: 934.07 . . . review, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion, concluding that “to the extent that [section] 934.07 . . . enumerates a more expansive list of offenses where wiretaps are authorized, including prostitution. § 934.07 . . . However, under the circumstances of this case, section 934.07 cannot be read as authorizing wiretaps . . .

STATE v. McCORMICK, 719 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . affidavit seeking authorization to intercept and record oral and wire communications under subsections 934.07 . . .

STATE v. M. HERSHKOWITZ,, 714 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . statutorily unauthorized because the investigation did not relate to any of the offenses specified in section 934.07 . . . Briefly, it is clear that the lower court’s ruling is both totally unsupported by the language of section 934.07 . . . to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. . 934.07 . . .

STATE v. STOUT,, 693 So. 2d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . the Florida Constitution required the police to obtain an order of authorization pursuant to section 934.07 . . . authorization prior to the interception, which must be in accord with the procedure set forth in Fla.Stat. 934.07 . . . not including sexual battery as a crime for which a court ordered intercept may be obtained under ss. 934.07 . . . prior to the interception, that the police obtain court authorization pursuant to the requirements of 934.07 . . .

BRANDIN, v. STATE, 669 So. 2d 280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 934.07 provides that a state attorney may authorize an application to a judge for an order authorizing . . .

STEVENSON, v. STATE, 667 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . §§ 934.03, 934.07, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

STATE v. RIVERS,, 660 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1995)

. . . Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1991), part of which the district court held invalid in this case, . . . The court concluded that “to the extent that [section] 934.07 permits the authorization of wiretaps to . . . enumerates a more expansive list of offenses where wiretaps are authorized, including prostitution. § 934.07 . . . However, under the circumstances of this case, section 934.07 cannot be read as authorizing wiretaps . . . Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1991), authorizes the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications . . .

STATE v. JACKSON,, 650 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1995)

. . . A DUPLICATE DISPLAY PAGER, THE STATE OF FLORIDA MUST FIRST SEEK AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 934.07 . . . We rephrase the question to read: MUST THE STATE OF FLORIDA SEEK AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 934.07 . . . who wanted to intercept such communications must follow the wiretap procedures set forth in sections 934.07 . . . Sections 934.07 and 934.09 set out a stringent procedure that applicants must follow to intercept wire . . . that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense listed in section 934.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GREEN, Jr. a k a C- A. a k a Sr. a k a, 40 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in s. 934.07 . . .

STATE v. RIVERS,, 643 So. 2d 3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1991) states in relevant part: [A]ny state attorney may authorize an . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 636 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . to intercept numbers called into the original display pager, the specific requirements of sections 934.07 . . . state candidly concedes that if a duplicate display pager is covered by the requirements of sections 934.07 . . . Section 934.07 strictly defines a limited category of individuals who can authorize an application before . . . Ch. 88-184, § 5, at 1024, and § 7, at 1025 (codified as amended at §§ 934.07 and 934.09, Fla.Stat. . . . As noted, the state concedes, and the record reflects, noncompliance with sections 934.07 and 934.09. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CARRAZANA, Z., 921 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in s. 934.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROWN, UNITED STATES v. BRADSHAW, a k a a k a, 862 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 934.07, F.S.A., authorizing interception of wire or oral communications of persons, is a statutory . . .

SHAKTMAN, J. v. STATE, 529 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in s. 934.07 . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. THOMAS, 23 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1987)

. . . statement of other applications, and that fully satisfied the statutory criteria set forth in F.S. 934.07 . . . that the failure to sign did not in any way deprive the defendant of the safeguard erected by F.S. 934.07 . . . There is no requirement contained in F.S. 934.07 that requires the authorization of the State Attorney . . .

UNITED STATES v. VAN HORN, UNITED STATES v. HARVEY, a k a, 789 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 934.07. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. BELOSH STATE OF FLORIDA v. CROMER, 13 Fla. Supp. 2d 34 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . Defendants contend primarily that since RICO is not one of the enumerated crimes for wiretap under F.S. 934.07 . . . Section 934.07 does not authorize wiretaps for suspected RICO offenses. . . . Section 934.07 in 1977 when RICO was enacted. . . . Section 934.07. . . . Section 934.07 was enacted to combat organized crime. . . .

UNITED STATES v. DOMME, Jr., 753 F.2d 950 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 934.07 (West Supp.1974-83). . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.07 (West 1973). . . .

PARKER C. v. STATE, 444 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . See § 934.07, Fla.Stat. . . .

SMITH v. STATE, 438 So. 2d 10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . reliability of informants; applications for certain of the orders by persons not authorized by section 934.07 . . .

E. COPELAND, III, v. STATE, 435 So. 2d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Appellant contends here that the application did not comport with the requirements of sections 934.07 . . . Section 934.07 provides: 934.07 Authorization for Interception of Wire or Oral Communications. . . . It is settled, of course, that section 934.07 does not empower an assistant state attorney to authorize . . . requirements for a search warrant need be satisfied, but the other procedures of chapter 934, such as sections 934.07 . . .

SARNO, Al G. Jr. v. STATE STATE v. GILLEY,, 424 So. 2d 829 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1977), enumerates the offenses which may justify the interception of . . . As it pertains to this issue, Section 934.07 would authorize such interceptions only to obtain evidence . . .

UNITED STATES v. HARVEY,, 560 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1982)

. . . . § 934.07, to intercept communications relating to violations of Florida narcotics laws and marijuana . . . authorizing Sims to apply by means of an authorization letter, the application violated Fla.Stat. § 934.07 . . .

STATE v. Ed McMANUS E. O Sr., 404 So. 2d 757 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 2516(2) or Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975). . . .

BAGLEY, v. STATE, 397 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . the amended application for the new number signed by the state attorney which is required by section 934.07 . . .

STATE v. BIRS, a k a Dr. a k a, 394 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 2516(2)), when read in the context of Section 934.07 Florida Statutes (1975), refers to the appropriate . . . The Florida Statute, Section 934.07, is rather clear that “any State Attorney may authorize ...” such . . .

STATE v. F. SARMIENTO,, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1981)

. . . interception of private communications” may be satisfied either by obtaining a warrant (under Section 934.07 . . .

AMERSON, v. STATE, 388 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . committing, have committed and are about to commit one of the offenses enumerated in Florida Statute 934.07 . . .

STATE v. DANIELS, 389 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1980)

. . . assistant state attorney authorized a police investigative officer to apply for the order under section 934.07 . . . Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), provides: The Governor, the Department of Legal Affairs, or . . . should hold that the assistant in this case had the power to authorize the application under section 934.07 . . . Our electronic surveillance authorizing statute is section 934.07, set out in full above. . . . We therefore hold that section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), did not empower an assistant state attorney . . .

STATE v. SCOTT O., 385 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . It is clear that no warrant (as authorized by Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1977)) was required for . . . interception of private communications” may be satisfied either by obtaining a warrant (under Section 934.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. FARESE, 612 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1980)

. . . Pursuant to Section 934.07, Florida Statutes, the duly executed authorization of the Honorable Philip . . .

VINALES, v. STATE ALVAREZ, v. STATE DE CASTRO, v. STATE, 374 So. 2d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . See Section 934.07, Florida Statutes (1977). . . .

F. SARMIENTO, v. STATE, 371 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . the constitutional requirements for such intercept warrants which are in turn implemented by Sections 934.07 . . .

HUDSON, v. STATE, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . ) an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offense enumerated in Section 934.07 . . . are to be intercepted is committing or is about to commit one of the offenses enumerated in Section 934.07 . . .

DANIELS, a k a v. STATE, 381 So. 2d 707 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . The federal law does not require a contrary result or mandate the invalidity of Florida Statute § 934.07 . . . Under the foregoing authorities, Florida Statute § 934.07 is a proper implementation of Title 18, § 2516 . . . F.S. 934.07 provides that “The Governor, the Attorney General or any State Attorney may authorize an . . . This contention of appellants is without merit. § 934.07, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that any . . . court held that an assistant state attorney could authorize an application for a wiretap under Sec. 934.07 . . .

B. MITCHELL v. STATE, 381 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . appellants were committing, had committed or were about to commit a particular offense enumerated in § 934.07 . . . individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in s. 934.07 . . .

STATE v. AURILIO, Di, 366 So. 2d 71 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Section 934.07 limits wiretap authorizations to investigations of: . murder, kidnapping, gambling (when . . . 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 . . . warrant an intercept authorization to investí-gate suspected gambling offenses as designated by Section 934.07 . . .

STATE v. ANDERSON, 48 Fla. Supp. 91 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)

. . . attorneys would be entitled to authorize an interception of communications pursuant to this, section [§934.07 . . . court held that an assistant state attorney could authorize an application for a wiretap under Sec. 934.07 . . . authorize an application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire communications, §934.07 . . .

STATE v. McGILLICUDDY, Jr. a k a Jr., 342 So. 2d 567 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . 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. — The governor, the department . . . a political subdivision of the State of Florida as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2) and Section 934.07 . . . court held that an assistant state attorney could authorize an application for a wiretap under Sec. 934.07 . . .

STATE v. ALPHONSE, 315 So. 2d 506 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . being used or about to be used in connection with the commission of an offense enumerated in section 934.07 . . .

RODRIGUEZ v. STATE, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974)

. . . believe that an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offense enumerated in § 934.07 . . .

E. WRIGHT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 495 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . A., §§ 934.02(8) and 934.07 are inconsistent with Title 18 U.S.C., Ch. 119, and the Fourth, Fifth and . . .

EAGAN, L. v. M. DeMANIO, a, 294 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1974)

. . . . § 934.07, F.S.A., which reads as follows: “Authorization for interception of •mire or oral communications . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. PACHECO N. Jr., 489 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1974)

. . . . § 934.07, F.S.A.: § 934.07 Authorization for interception of wire or oral communications The governor . . . Florida Statutes § 934.07, F.S.A. authorizes interception orders for precisely the same list of offenses . . .

In GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. In COBO,, 287 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1973)

. . . . § 934.07, F.S.A. . . . involve him with any offense other than those specifically authorized under the wiretap statute by F.S. § 934.07 . . . A., and more particularly F.S. § 934.07, F. . . . (F.S. 934.07) Obviously, the statute sets the stage for the permissive use of authorized wiretaps, which . . .

STATE v. BERJAH, 266 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . See § 934.07 et seq., Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . . a valid application for an intercept order could not be made by an assistant state attorney under § 934.07 . . .

STATE v. ANGEL,, 261 So. 2d 198 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . Appellate Rules, a certified question has been propounded to this court as follows: “Whether Chapter 934.07 . . . dated April 20, 1971; that as a predicate to the entry of such order, and as required under Chapter 934.07 . . . 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 . . . *** These provisions were in the Constitution and in the Statutes at the time of the enactment of § 934.07 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LANZA,, 341 F. Supp. 405 (M.D. Fla. 1972)

. . . . § 934.07, F.S.A. . . . Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A. names the department of legal affairs); nor would the state attorneys for the . . . OFFENSE FOR WHICH AN INTERCEPT ORDER MAY BE ISSUED UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (2) AND FLORIDA STATUTES § 934.07 . . . statute authorizing such interception, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses. . § 934.07 . . . Fla.Stat. § 934.07, F.S.A. supra, note 2. . Fla.Stat. § 849.08, F.S.A, supra, note 13 . . . .

STATE v. BLACKBURN,, 35 Fla. Supp. 202 (Seminole Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)

. . . affidavit included a finding that the offense of “gambling” was conditioned upon the wording contained in §934.07 . . .