Florida
Florida Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rules (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Florida requires all-party consent to record conversations, and that rule applies fully in the workplace under Fla. Stat. 934.03. Employees and employers alike cannot secretly record audio of workplace conversations. Doing so is a third-degree felony, and there is no general exception for documenting harassment or misconduct; the narrow exceptions are described below.
Florida's strict all-party consent requirement under Florida Statute 934.03 applies with full force in the workplace. Employees cannot secretly record conversations with coworkers, supervisors, or clients. Employers cannot secretly record employee conversations. The law makes no distinction between personal and professional settings when it comes to audio recording: if a conversation is private and the parties have not all consented, recording it is a third-degree felony.
This creates a challenging landscape for both employers who want to monitor workplace activity and employees who want to document misconduct. Understanding the specific rules for audio recording, video surveillance, and whistleblower protections is essential for anyone working in Florida.
Can Employees Record at Work in Florida?
Audio Recording by Employees
Under F.S. 934.03, employees in Florida cannot secretly record:

- Private conversations with coworkers
- Meetings with supervisors or managers
- Performance reviews or disciplinary sessions
- Phone calls with clients, customers, or vendors
- Any private workplace communication
The all-party consent rule means that every person participating in a conversation must agree before any recording takes place. An employee who uses a smartphone, voice recorder, or any other device to secretly capture a workplace conversation commits a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
No Exception for Documenting Misconduct
Unlike states such as California, which provides a crime-evidence exception allowing private citizens to record without consent when gathering evidence of serious crimes, Florida provides no general crime-evidence exception for private citizens. Law enforcement officers, and people acting at their direction, may make one-party consent recordings to obtain evidence of a criminal act under F.S. 934.03(2)(c).
Private citizens have only narrow exceptions. A person protected by an active temporary or final injunction for repeat, sexual, or dating violence, stalking, or domestic violence, or by any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the person, may record a wire, oral, or electronic communication received in violation of that order. If the person under the order has been served or is on notice of it, the recording may be given to law enforcement, an attorney, or a court as evidence of the violation (F.S. 934.03(2)(m)). A child under 18 may also record an in-person conversation the child is part of to capture evidence of sexual abuse or violence against the child (F.S. 934.03(2)(k)).
Unless one of those exceptions applies, an employee who secretly records a supervisor making harassing or discriminatory comments faces felony charges for the recording itself, and the recording will likely be inadmissible in court. If you need to preserve evidence of workplace misconduct in Florida, consult an employment attorney about legal options before recording anything.
When Employee Recording Is Legal
Employees can legally record workplace conversations when:
- All participants consent before the recording starts
- The conversation takes place in a public area where no party has a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a loud conversation in a busy public cafeteria)
- The recording is authorized by law enforcement as part of an investigation
- The employee is protected by an active injunction or other court order against the other person and records communications received in violation of it (F.S. 934.03(2)(m))
Can Employers Record Employees in Florida?

Employer Video Surveillance
Florida employers may install video surveillance cameras in workplace common areas, provided they follow certain guidelines:
Where video cameras are permitted:
- Lobbies and reception areas
- Hallways and corridors
- Production floors and warehouse spaces
- Parking lots and garages
- Building entrances and exits
- Common break rooms (video only, no audio)
Where cameras create legal risk:
- Restrooms and bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas: secretly recording employees dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body there can be digital voyeurism under F.S. 810.145
- Private offices, medical examination rooms, and areas set aside for private conversations: an audio-capable camera there can intercept oral communications in violation of F.S. 934.03
Recommended practices for employer video surveillance:
No Florida statute requires an employer to give employees advance written notice of silent (video-only) surveillance; F.S. 934.03 covers wire, oral, and electronic communications, not silent video. Notice still matters: the digital voyeurism statute, F.S. 810.145(5), does not apply to a security system when a written notice is conspicuously posted on the premises stating that video surveillance has been installed for security, or to a camera whose presence is clearly and immediately obvious. Common practices include:
- Giving employees written notice that video surveillance is in use
- Specifying which areas are monitored
- Including surveillance policies in employee handbooks
- Documenting a legitimate business purpose for the monitoring (security, loss prevention, safety)
Florida's digital voyeurism statute, F.S. 810.145, makes it a crime to intentionally use or install an imaging device to secretly view, broadcast, or record a person, without that person's knowledge and consent, who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body, at a place and time when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a bathroom, changing room, or dressing room), for amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or to degrade, exploit, or abuse the person. An employer who commits that offense with a hidden camera in a restroom, locker room, or changing area faces more than the base third-degree felony: because an employer is a statutorily defined "position of authority or trust" over an employee, F.S. 810.145(7)(b) requires the court to reclassify the offense to the next higher felony degree, even on a first offense with no prior conviction. For a 19-or-older employer, that means a second-degree felony (up to 15 years in prison, $10,000 fine) rather than the base third-degree exposure.
Employer Audio Recording
Adding audio recording capabilities to workplace surveillance systems dramatically changes the legal requirements. Under F.S. 934.03, employers who capture audio of employee conversations must:
- Inform every employee that audio recording is taking place
- Obtain consent from every person whose conversations may be captured
- Post clear signage indicating audio monitoring is in effect
- Include audio monitoring policies in employee handbooks and onboarding materials
An employer who records audio of employee conversations without obtaining all-party consent faces the same criminal and civil penalties as any other person who violates Section 934.03: up to 5 years in prison, $5,000 in fines, and civil liability under F.S. 934.10.
Employer Monitoring of Electronic Communications
Florida employers may monitor electronic communications on company-owned devices and networks, but with certain restrictions:
- Company email on company devices: Employers generally have broad authority to monitor email on company-owned systems, especially when employees have been notified of the monitoring policy
- Personal devices: Employers have limited authority to monitor personal devices, even when they are used on company networks
- Telephone monitoring: Recording business phone calls requires compliance with F.S. 934.03, which requires the prior consent of every party. The common practice is to use an automated announcement ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance") at the start of each call, but the statute does not say that an announcement alone counts as consent; a clear disclosure and an express agreement to continue is the safer practice
Workplace Recording and Florida Employment Law

Wrongful Termination Concerns
Florida is an at-will employment state, meaning employers can generally terminate employees for any lawful reason. An employer can fire an employee for recording workplace conversations, even if the recording was consensual. The at-will doctrine gives employers broad discretion in termination decisions.
However, termination for recording may be challenged if:
- The employee was recording in compliance with a law enforcement investigation
- The recording was related to reporting illegal activity through proper channels (whistleblower protection)
- The termination violates a specific employment contract provision
Hostile Work Environment and Harassment Documentation
Employees who experience workplace harassment or discrimination face a difficult situation in Florida. Secretly recording the harassment is generally illegal (unless the employee holds an injunction or court order against the harasser and records communications that violate it), but there are legal alternatives:
- Contemporaneous written notes: Document incidents immediately after they occur, including dates, times, locations, and witnesses
- Email follow-ups: Send an email to the harasser or supervisor summarizing what was said, creating a written record
- Report to HR: File formal complaints through the company's human resources department
- File a charge with the EEOC or FCHR: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Florida Commission on Human Relations investigate workplace discrimination complaints
- Consult an employment attorney: An attorney can advise on legal methods to preserve evidence
Florida Whistleblower Protections

Public Employee Whistleblower Act (F.S. 112.3187)
Florida Statute 112.3187 protects public employees who report violations of law, rule, or regulation that create a substantial and specific danger to public health, safety, or welfare, or that constitute acts of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, or gross neglect of duty.
Protected activities include:
- Disclosing information about violations to an appropriate agency
- Being requested to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry
- Refusing to participate in an activity that violates law
Important: This statute protects employees who report through proper channels. It does not authorize secret audio or video recording in the workplace. An employee who secretly records a conversation to support a whistleblower complaint still violates F.S. 934.03, unless a narrow statutory exception applies.
Private Sector Whistleblower Protection (F.S. 448.102)
Florida Statute 448.102 provides parallel protections for private sector employees who:
- Disclose, or threaten to disclose, to an appropriate government agency, under oath and in writing, an employer practice that violates a law, rule, or regulation, but only after first bringing it to the employer's attention in writing and giving the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct it
- Provide information to, or testify before, a government agency or other body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation by the employer
- Object to or refuse to participate in activity that violates a law, rule, or regulation
Like the public sector statute, this law protects reporting through proper channels but does not create an exception to Florida's wiretapping law.
Workplace Recording and Union Activity
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees' right to engage in concerted activity, including discussing wages, working conditions, and other employment terms.
Stericycle standard (controlling): In Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB 113 (2023), the NLRB established the current framework for evaluating employer work rules: a facially neutral employer policy that an employee could reasonably interpret as restricting NLRA-protected activity is presumptively unlawful unless the employer can show it advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that cannot be achieved through a more narrowly tailored rule. This standard applies to employer no-recording policies. A blanket prohibition on all workplace recording may fail this test if it chills employees from documenting safety hazards or organizing activity.
NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (dated June 25, 2025): NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC Memo 25-07 directing regional offices to treat the surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice -- a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under NLRA Section 8(a)(5). This is prosecutorial guidance, not a Board decision or binding court precedent, but Florida employers who record collective bargaining sessions without union consent now face both NLRB exposure and criminal liability under F.S. 934.03.
NLRB GC Memo 25-05 (context): GC Memo 25-05 was a housekeeping rescission memo that withdrew certain prior GC policy memos. It did not restore the Boeing standard or signal a substantive rollback of Stericycle. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it.
Even if an employer's blanket no-recording policy is found to violate the NLRA, Florida's wiretapping statute still applies independently. An employee cannot secretly record audio of a conversation in Florida even if the employer's internal policy against recording is unenforceable under the NLRA.
Remote Work and Recording
With the growth of remote work, new recording issues have emerged:
Video Conferences
Recording a Zoom, Teams, or other video conference call requires consent from all participants under Florida law. If any participant is in Florida, the all-party consent rule applies. The recording consent checker can show the rule for each participant's state before the meeting starts. Most video conferencing platforms provide notification when recording begins, but the host should explicitly announce the recording and obtain verbal consent.
Virtual Interviews
Employers conducting virtual job interviews with Florida candidates must follow the same consent rules. Recording a video interview without the candidate's consent violates F.S. 934.03.
Monitoring Remote Employees
Employers who monitor remote employees' activities on company-provided equipment should:
- Disclose all monitoring practices in writing before monitoring begins
- Specify what activities are monitored (keystrokes, screen captures, audio, video)
- Limit monitoring to company-owned devices and work-related activities
- Avoid capturing audio of personal conversations that take place in the employee's home
Penalties for Workplace Recording Violations
| Violation | Penalty | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Secret audio recording of workplace conversations | Third-degree felony: up to 5 years prison, $5,000 fine | F.S. 934.03 |
| Hidden cameras in restrooms or changing areas | Third-degree felony (19+): up to 5 years prison, $5,000 fine; reclassified to second-degree (15 years, $10,000 fine) if the offender is the employer or otherwise holds a position of authority or trust over the victim | F.S. 810.145 |
| Civil damages for illegal recording | Actual damages, but not less than $100 a day or $1,000 (whichever is higher), plus punitive damages and attorney's fees; sue within 2 years of a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation | F.S. 934.10 |
| Retaliation against whistleblower | Civil remedies including reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages | F.S. 112.3187 / 448.102 |
More Florida Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Florida Recording Laws
More Florida Recording Topics
More Florida Laws
- Florida AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Florida Dashcam Laws
- Florida Data Privacy Laws
- Florida Deepfake Laws
- Florida Employee Monitoring Laws
- Florida GPS Tracking Laws
- Florida Police Bodycam Laws
- Florida Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I secretly record my boss in Florida to document harassment?
Generally no. Florida's all-party consent law (F.S. 934.03) applies in the workplace with no general exception for documenting harassment. Secretly recording a conversation is usually a third-degree felony, and the recording would likely be inadmissible in court. The narrow exception is for a person protected by an active injunction or other court order against the harasser, who may record communications received in violation of that order and give them to law enforcement, an attorney, or a court (F.S. 934.03(2)(m)). Instead, document incidents in writing, report through HR, file complaints with the EEOC or Florida Commission on Human Relations, and consult an employment attorney.
Can my employer install cameras in the workplace in Florida?
Employers may install video-only cameras in common work areas (lobbies, hallways, production floors). No Florida statute requires advance notice for silent video, though written notice is standard practice. Secretly recording people who are dressing, undressing, or exposed in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas can be digital voyeurism under F.S. 810.145. If cameras also record audio, the employer must obtain consent from every person whose conversations may be captured, per F.S. 934.03.
Can my employer record my phone calls at work in Florida?
Only with proper notice and consent. Florida's all-party consent law requires that all participants on a call agree to the recording. Many employers play an automated announcement at the start of business calls stating the call may be recorded, but F.S. 934.03 does not say that an announcement alone counts as consent, so the safer practice is a clear disclosure at the start of the call and an express agreement to continue. Employees should receive written notice of call recording policies.
Does Florida's Whistleblower Act protect me if I record workplace violations?
Florida's whistleblower laws (F.S. 112.3187 for public employees, F.S. 448.102 for private employees) protect employees who report violations in the ways those statutes specify; for a private employee's disclosure to a government agency, that means a written disclosure under oath, made after first notifying the employer in writing and giving it a reasonable chance to fix the problem. Neither law authorizes or protects secret recording. An employee who secretly records conversations to support a whistleblower complaint can still face felony charges under F.S. 934.03 for the recording itself, unless a narrow statutory exception applies.
Can my employer fire me for recording a conversation at work in Florida?
Yes. Florida is an at-will employment state, and employers can terminate employees for recording workplace conversations. If the recording was made without all-party consent, the employee also faces criminal liability under F.S. 934.03. Even consensual recording may violate an employer's internal workplace policies and result in disciplinary action.
Updates
We noted that the NLRB has signaled it may revisit its Stericycle work-rule standard and clarified that Florida's exception for a minor recording evidence of abuse covers only in-person conversations.
We reframed the list of risky camera locations to match Florida's voyeurism and wiretap statutes, corrected the date of NLRB GC Memo 25-07 to June 25, 2025, and noted that narrow statutory exceptions can apply to a whistleblower's recording.
We added Florida's narrow recording exceptions for people protected by an injunction or no-contact order and for child victims, stated the written-notice and under-oath conditions of the private whistleblower law (F.S. 448.102), corrected the F.S. 934.10 damages rule, and clarified that a call-recording announcement is not stated in the statute to be consent.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the video-surveillance section: Florida has no statute requiring advance notice for silent workplace video, and the page now describes the elements and notice exemptions of the digital voyeurism statute, F.S. 810.145.
Added the F.S. 810.145(7)(b) enhanced penalty (second-degree felony) that applies when an employer installs a hidden camera in a restroom or changing area, since an employer counts as a position of authority or trust under the statute, and corrected the NLRB GC Memo 25-07 date from June 25 to June 26, 2025.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Title updated to 2026. Added NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (dated June 25, 2025) on surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions. Added Stericycle (372 NLRB 113, 2023) as the controlling NLRB standard for evaluating employer no-recording policies. Noted NLRB GC 25-05 was a housekeeping rescission memo, not a substantive policy change affecting recording rights. Fixed California comparison link.
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Florida Statutes
§ 934.03Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.In forcecited in 53 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Walls (1978) held that recording an in-home oral communication without the consent of all parties violated section 934.03 and required suppression, and State v. Inciarrano (1985) held the statute protects only communications uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)✓An extortion victim secretly recorded threats made to him in his own home; the court held that was a protected oral communication, that recording it without every party's consent violated Section 934.03, and that Section 934.06 barred using the tape as evidence.
- SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2021)“…ng oral communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing without vio…”
- State v. Calhoun (Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida 1984, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3)“…hall not be violated” . . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for *6 any person (…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026)
§ 112.3187Adverse action against employee for disclosing information of specified nature prohibited; employee remedy and relief.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) SHORT TITLE.—Sections 112.3187-112.31895 may be cited as the “Whistle-blower’s Act.” (2) LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—It is the intent of the Legislature to prevent agencies or independent contractors from taking retaliatory action against an employee who reports to an appropriate agency violations of law on the part of a public employer or independent contractor that create a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare. It is further the intent of the Legislature to prevent agencies or independent contractors from taking retaliatory action against any person who discloses information to an appropriate agency alleging improper use of governmental office, gross waste of funds, or any other abuse or gross neglect of duty on the part of an agency, public officer, or employee.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 94 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh (Supreme Court of Florida 1994, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 592)“…court that he was discharged in Florida. [6] Codified at section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (1993). [7] The relevant provisions,…”
- Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2003, 853 So. 2d 1125)“…auderdale (City) pursuant to the Florida Whistleblower Act, section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). Lamar alleged that she was…”
- Hastings v. Demming (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1996, 682 So. 2d 1107)“…of a statutory defense to a cause of action brought under section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (1989), Florida's "Whistle-blower's Act…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Whistleblower Ruling: Gessner Raises the Bar (2026), Florida Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report
§ 448.102Prohibitions.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has:(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However, this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing, brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice. (2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer. (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 112 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Walsh v. Arrow Air, Inc. (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1993, 629 So. 2d 144)“…(Fla. 1980). The majority now erroneously concludes that section 448.102, Florida Statutes (1991), which was enacted after the o…”
- Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh (Supreme Court of Florida 1994, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 592)“…employee in the terms and conditions of employment." [3] Section 448.102, Florida Statutes (1993), provides: Prohibitions. An…”
- Diaz v. Impex of Doral, Inc. (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2009, 7 So. 3d 591)“…gistics) for the violation of Florida’s Whistle Blower Act, section 448.102, Florida Statutes, et seq. (2002). Impex and Impex Logist…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights, Florida Final Paycheck Laws: No Deadline, Federal Rule Applies, Wrongful Termination in Florida (2026): Laws, Deadlines, How to File
§ 810.145Digital voyeurism.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, the term:(a) “Broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image or visual recording with the intent that it be viewed by another person. (b) “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in s. 741.28. (c) “Imaging device” means any mechanical, digital, or electronic viewing device; still camera; camcorder; motion picture camera; or any other instrument, equipment, or format capable of recording, storing, or transmitting visual images of another person. (d) “Position of authority or trust” means a position occupied by a person 18 years of age or older who is a relative, caregiver, coach, employer, or other person who, by reason of his or her relationship with the victim, is able to exercise undue influence over him or her or exploit his or her trust. (e) “Privately exposing the body” means exposing a sexual organ.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kenneth Isaac Parkerson v. State of Florida (2015) rejected a facial overbreadth challenge to section 810.145, holding the video voyeurism statute regulates conduct, not pure speech. Clemen v. Surterra Holdings, Inc. (2024) drew on its privacy definition and exemption for clearly visible cameras when dismissing an intrusion claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kenneth Isaac Parkerson v. State of Florida (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2015, 163 So. 3d 683)✓A man caught watching people inside their homes, once carrying a camera, argued Florida's video voyeurism statute was facially overbroad because it could reach journalists and investigators; the court held section 810.145 is not overbroad and affirmed his convictions.
- Clemen v. Surterra Holdings, Inc. (District Court, M.D. Florida 2024)✓A worker sued over cameras aimed at a workplace changing area; dismissing her intrusion on seclusion claim, the court drew on section 810.145's privacy definition and its exclusion for obvious cameras, and found no authority making an alleged violation outrageous per se.
- Keith Taig v. City of Vero Beach (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2023)✓A spa customer recorded by covert police cameras installed under a court order argued Florida statutes including section 810.145 gave officers clear notice of customers' privacy rights; the court held those state statutes do not clearly establish a federal constitutional right.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Florida Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Florida Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras and Privacy Rules (2026)
§ 934.10Civil remedies.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
(1) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 shall have a civil cause of action against any person or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or entity to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications and shall be entitled to recover from any such person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate, including:(a) Preliminary or equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (b) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (c) Punitive damages; and (d) A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (2) A good faith reliance on:(a) A court order, subpoena, or legislative authorization as provided in ss. 934.03-934.09, (b) A request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under s. 934.09(7), or (c) A good faith determination that Florida or federal law, other than 18 U.S.C. s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 33 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Minotty v. Baudo (2010) held the civil action reaches only actual interception, not attempts, and does not cover silent video surveillance. Jatar v. Lamaletto (2000) affirmed summary judgment where the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Burgess v. Burgess (1984) held interspousal immunity does not bar the action.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burgess v. Burgess (Supreme Court of Florida 1984, 447 So. 2d 220)“…mages brought by one spouse against the other spouse, under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979)? Burgess v. Burgess, 417 S…”
- Minotty v. Baudo (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2010, 42 So. 3d 824)✓A doctor hid cameras in colleagues' offices, but the microphones never worked, so only silent video was captured. The court held section 934.10 gives a civil claim only for actual interception of oral communications, not attempts or silent video, and reversed those judgments.
- Roberts v. Jardine (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1978, 358 So. 2d 588)✓Sued under section 934.10 for secretly taping a phone call, the defendant refused to answer interrogatories. The court held she could invoke the Fifth Amendment, since interception is also a crime, and could not be defaulted for it, but had to produce the tape already played.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Florida Dashcam Laws: Rules for Dashboard Cameras (2026), Florida Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules (2026)
Sources and References
- Florida Statute 934.03(flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Statute 934.10(flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Statute 112.3187 - Whistleblower Act(flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Statute 448.102 - Private Sector Whistleblower(flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Statute 810.145 - Digital Voyeurism(flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Commission on Human Relations(fchr.myflorida.com).gov
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(eeoc.gov).gov