Florida’s All-Party Consent Recording Law (§934.03) and Evidence Gathering

By MAYN Investigations Team

The rule in one sentence

Unless a specific exception applies, a person who intentionally intercepts, uses or discloses a wire, oral or electronic communication without the prior consent of all parties violates §934.03, which is generally a third-degree felony (§934.03(4)(a)).

Section 934.03(1) reaches more than the act of recording. It also prohibits intentionally disclosing or using the contents of a communication “knowing or having reason to know” it was obtained through an unlawful interception (§934.03(1)(c)–(d)). That matters to attorneys, because a recording that reaches your desk is a legal question before it is an evidentiary one.

Key definitions

Term	Statutory meaning (§934.02)	Why it matters
Intercept	“the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device” (§934.02(3))	Using a phone, body-worn recorder, hidden microphone or camera with audio to capture what is said is an acquisition by a device.
Oral communication	a communication “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation,” excluding public oral communications at a public meeting (§934.02(2))	This is where the “reasonable expectation of privacy” analysis applies to in-person conversations.
Wire communication	an aural transfer made in whole or in part through wire, cable or similar connection facilities (§934.02(1))	Telephone calls. The definition contains no expectation-of-privacy element.
Electronic communication	transfers of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or data by wire, radio or similar systems, excluding wire and oral communications and tracking-device signals (§934.02(12))	Texts, email and data in transmission. Tracking devices are addressed separately in §934.425.

The reasonable expectation of privacy

Because “oral communication” is defined by the speaker’s justified expectation of non-interception, not every recorded in-person conversation is protected. The Florida Supreme Court has addressed this element directly:

• In State v. Inciarrano, 473 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985), the Court held that a recording the victim made in his own office, capturing the defendant who had come there to harm him, was not within Chapter 934’s proscription. The Court explained that the statute requires a reasonable expectation of privacy, not merely a subjective one, and found none under those circumstances.
• In McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014), the Court held that recordings a child made in the accused’s bedroom of his solicitation and confirmation of abuse were unlawful interceptions of oral communications and were inadmissible under §934.06. The Court reasoned that statements made in one’s own bedroom carried a justified expectation of privacy. Section 934.03 now contains narrow exceptions for recordings by a child, or by a parent or guardian, under specified circumstances (§934.03(2)(k)–(l)).

What this means for your case: expectation-of-privacy arguments depend heavily on the facts, and courts have reached different results in different settings. Location, who else could hear, the nature of the premises and whether a device was visible all matter. Do not build an evidence plan on the hope that a court will find no expectation of privacy. Plan to get consent, or do not record audio.

The exclusionary rule: §934.06

Section 934.06 provides that when a wire or oral communication has been intercepted, “no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state,” if disclosure would violate Chapter 934. The only stated exception is a prosecution for criminal interception itself.

What this means for your case:

• The rule applies to civil and family proceedings as well as criminal ones.
• It reaches derivative evidence. If an unlawful recording leads you to a witness or document, expect a fight over whether that evidence is tainted.
• By its text, §934.06 addresses wire and oral communications. Whether electronic communications are excluded is a separate question that you should research for your specific facts.

Criminal and civil exposure

Criminal

A violation of §934.03(1) is a third-degree felony (§934.03(4)(a)). Reduced misdemeanor penalties apply only to certain first-offense interceptions of unscrambled radio communications made without a tortious, illegal or commercial purpose (§934.03(4)(b)). Those exceptions do not cover a recorded interview or a hidden recorder.

Civil

Under §934.10, a person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of §§934.03–934.09 may sue anyone who intercepted, disclosed or used it, or procured another to do so. Available relief includes:

• equitable or declaratory relief;
• actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher;
• punitive damages; and
• reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

The action must be brought within 2 years after the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation (§934.10(3)). Good-faith reliance on a determination that Florida or federal law permitted the conduct is a complete defense, but the statute expressly excludes reliance on 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d), the federal one-party consent provision (§934.10(2)(c)). Believing that “federal law allows it” is not a defense in Florida.

What this means for your case: the “procures any other person” language in §934.03(1)(a) and §934.10(1) means liability can reach whoever directed the recording, not only the person holding the device. Never instruct, encourage or approve a non-consensual recording, whether by an investigator or by your client.

Exceptions you will actually encounter

• All-party consent (§934.03(2)(d)). This is the exception that matters in private investigation. Get consent, and capture it on the recording.
• Law enforcement (§934.03(2)(c)). Officers, and persons acting under their direction, may intercept with one party’s consent to obtain evidence of a criminal act. This does not extend to private investigators working for civil counsel.
• Injunction-protected persons (§934.03(2)(m)). A person protected by an active injunction for repeat, sexual or dating violence, stalking or domestic violence, or by another court-imposed no-contact order, may record a communication received in violation of that order. The recording may be provided to law enforcement, an attorney or a court to show the violation, but may not otherwise be disseminated. This is relevant in family law matters.
• Child victims and parents (§934.03(2)(k)–(l)). These are narrow exceptions for recording statements about unlawful sexual acts or violence against a child, with strict limits on use.

What investigators can and cannot record

Activity	General position under Florida law
Video of a subject’s conduct in public, without audio	Chapter 934 regulates interception of communications. Silent video of publicly observable conduct does not acquire the contents of a communication. Other laws still apply (see below). Standard practice is to disable audio.
Video with ambient audio that captures conversations	High risk. A captured conversation can be an “oral communication” if the speakers had a justified expectation of privacy. Turn audio off.
Recorded witness interview, in person or by phone	Permitted with the consent of every party. State the consent on the recording at the start, and get it again if anyone joins.
Secretly recording a phone call the investigator is on	Not permitted without all-party consent. One-party consent under federal law does not satisfy §934.03.
Placing a recorder in a home, car or office to capture others	Prohibited interception, and potentially other offenses.
Imaging a person dressing, undressing or exposed where privacy is expected	Prohibited. Digital voyeurism under §810.145.
Drone imaging of private property or its occupants for surveillance	Restricted without written consent where it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person on private property not observable from ground level is presumed to have that expectation (§934.50(3)(b)).
GPS tracker on a subject’s vehicle	Prohibited without consent unless an exception applies. Third-degree felony (§934.425). The business-purpose exception in §934.425(4)(g) expressly does not cover a private investigator acting for another person unless the activity would be exempt under that subsection if the client did it.

When a client hands you a recording

In practice, many recording problems begin with the client, not the investigator. A spouse or business partner shows up with an audio file. Before you listen to it, copy it, quote it in a pleading or send it to an investigator to “follow up on,” consider §934.03(1)(c)–(d). Those subsections reach intentional use or disclosure by someone who knows or has reason to know the recording was unlawfully made. Find out how and where it was made, who was present, and whether everyone consented. Then make a deliberate decision, with ethics guidance if needed, about how to handle it.

Attorney checklist

• ☐ Tell your investigator in writing: no audio recording without all-party consent, and audio disabled on surveillance video.
• ☐ For recorded interviews, require a consent statement at the start of each recording and keep a written consent form where practical.
• ☐ Prohibit tracking devices unless there is documented consent or a court order (§934.425(4)(d)).
• ☐ Confirm any drone use complies with §934.50 and FAA rules, or rule it out.
• ☐ Ask about any recording a client offers before you use or disclose it.
• ☐ For calls that cross state lines, research choice of law before relying on another state’s one-party rule.
• ☐ Preserve original files, metadata and chain-of-custody records for any lawful recording.
• ☐ Anticipate a §934.06 motion and be ready to show consent.

Frequently asked questions

Is Florida a one-party or two-party consent state?

Florida is usually described as an “all-party” (or two-party) consent state. Section 934.03(2)(d) permits interception “when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent.”

Can our investigator record a phone interview with a witness?

Yes, if every party consents. Announce the recording, get the witness’s agreement on the record, and repeat that if anyone else joins the call.

Can surveillance video include sound?

Audio is where the risk lies. If the video picks up a conversation made with a justified expectation of privacy, that is an interception of an oral communication. The standard practice is to record video without audio.

Does §934.06 apply in civil and family cases?

Yes. The text applies to “any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court” and to agencies and other state authorities, not only criminal trials.

What if the other side recorded our client illegally?

Consider a motion to exclude under §934.06, including as to derivative evidence, and evaluate a civil claim under §934.10, which provides liquidated damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees and has a 2-year discovery-based limitations period.

Is a recording of a public meeting protected?

No. The definition of “oral communication” in §934.02(2) excludes “any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting.”

Primary sources

• Chapter 934, Florida Statutes: §§934.02, 934.03, 934.06, 934.10, 934.425, 934.50
• §810.145, Florida Statutes (digital voyeurism)
• State v. Inciarrano, 473 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985)
• McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014)

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Statutes are cited to the 2026 Florida Statutes as published by the Florida Senate. Expectation-of-privacy questions turn on facts, so research the current case law for your circumstances.