Florida
Florida Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Florida allows video-only surveillance cameras in public and semi-public areas with no consent required, but Fla. Stat. 934.03 makes recording audio without every participant's consent a felony. Cameras in bathrooms, changing rooms, or other private spaces violate the digital voyeurism law under Fla. Stat. 810.145.
Overview of Florida Surveillance Camera Laws
Last verified: March 2026. This page reflects current Florida Statutes including Chapter 934 (Security of Communications), Section 810.145 (Digital Voyeurism), and Section 877.26 (Merchant Surveillance Restrictions).
Florida does not have a single comprehensive surveillance camera statute. Instead, several overlapping state laws govern where and how cameras can be used. The legality of any surveillance camera in Florida depends on two primary factors: whether the camera captures audio, and whether it records in a location where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Silent video recording is treated very differently from audio recording under Florida law. While video-only cameras face relatively few restrictions in public or semi-public spaces, any device that captures oral communications triggers Florida's strict all-party consent wiretapping statute.
This guide covers every major area of Florida surveillance camera law, from home security systems and workplace monitoring to hidden cameras, Ring doorbells, and HOA restrictions.
Audio Recording and All-Party Consent
Florida is one of roughly a dozen states that require all-party consent before recording any oral communication. Under Fla. Stat. § 934.03, it is illegal to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication unless every party to the conversation has given prior consent.
This law applies directly to surveillance cameras equipped with microphones. A security camera that records both video and audio in a location where private conversations occur can violate this statute, even if the video recording itself would otherwise be legal.
What Counts as an Oral Communication
Florida law protects "oral communications" where the speaker has a reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being intercepted. A conversation on a public sidewalk where anyone could overhear generally carries less privacy protection than a conversation inside a private office or home.
However, the safest practice is to obtain consent before recording audio in any setting. Florida courts have interpreted this law broadly, and the consequences for violations are severe.
Exceptions to the All-Party Consent Rule
Florida law provides limited exceptions under Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2):
- Law enforcement with authorization: Officers acting under a court order or with one party's consent for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a criminal act
- All parties consent: When every person involved in the communication agrees to the recording
- Public communications: Electronic communications transmitted through systems configured to be readily accessible to the general public
- Service provider monitoring: Providers of communication services acting within the normal course of employment
There is no general "security system exception" that allows property owners to record audio without consent simply because a camera is part of a security system.
Home Security Camera Laws
Florida homeowners have broad rights to install video surveillance cameras on their own property. There is no state law prohibiting a homeowner from placing security cameras on the exterior or interior of their home, provided certain boundaries are respected.
Where You Can Place Cameras
- Exterior of your home: Front door, driveway, garage, backyard, and other outdoor areas you own
- Common interior areas: Living rooms, kitchens, hallways, and entryways
- Your own property boundaries: Cameras aimed at your own yard, walkways, and structures
Where You Cannot Place Cameras
- Areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy: Bathrooms, guest bedrooms where someone is staying, and any space where a person might undress
- Aimed at a neighbor's private spaces: Cameras pointed directly into a neighbor's windows, over privacy fences into backyards, or into other areas where the neighbor has a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Any location capturing audio without consent: Even on your own property, recording conversations without every participant's knowledge and consent violates Fla. Stat. § 934.03
Practical Tips for Homeowners
To stay within the law, keep your cameras focused on your own property. Use video-only mode or disable microphones on outdoor cameras that might capture conversations from neighbors or passersby. If your camera has two-way audio or always-on audio recording, make sure everyone who might be recorded is aware and consents.
Ring Doorbells and Smart Camera Systems
Ring doorbells, Nest cameras, Arlo systems, and similar smart home devices are increasingly common in Florida. These devices raise specific legal questions because many of them record both video and audio by default.
Video Recording
A Ring doorbell or similar device pointed at your front door, porch, driveway, or the public street is generally legal under Florida law. These areas are visible to anyone passing by and typically do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Audio Recording Concerns
Many smart doorbells and cameras have built-in microphones that automatically record audio along with video. Under Florida's all-party consent law, this audio recording can create legal problems. If a visitor, delivery driver, or neighbor has a conversation on your porch that your Ring doorbell captures, you could technically be in violation of Fla. Stat. § 934.03.
To reduce legal risk:
- Disable audio recording on outdoor cameras when possible
- Post visible signage near your doorbell stating that audio and video recording is in progress, which may serve as implied consent
- Use two-way talk features carefully, as activating the microphone during a live conversation with the other party's knowledge is different from passively recording without their awareness
Neighbor Disputes Over Cameras
Florida courts have addressed disputes in which one neighbor's camera captures another neighbor's property. There is no Florida rule that aiming a camera toward a neighbor's yard is automatically unlawful, and no reported decision is cited here for that proposition. Whether a particular camera crosses the line is decided case by case on the specific facts, such as how high the camera is mounted, what it can actually see, and whether the area it captures is otherwise screened from ordinary view.
If a neighbor's camera is pointed directly at your private spaces, you may have a claim for intrusion upon seclusion under Florida common law. This tort applies when someone intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and it does not require that anything be published or shown to anyone else.
Nanny Cams and In-Home Hidden Cameras
Florida law allows homeowners to use hidden cameras (commonly called "nanny cams") inside their own homes, with important limitations.
Video-Only Nanny Cams
Silent, video-only nanny cams are generally legal in common areas of your home such as the living room, kitchen, or playroom. Florida's wiretapping statute under Chapter 934 specifically addresses the interception of oral communications, not video recording. Because the legislature did not include a prohibition on silent video recording, courts have allowed video-only surveillance footage from hidden cameras.
A Florida appeals court confirmed in 2010 that silent video surveillance footage from a hidden camera could be admitted as evidence in court, reinforcing the distinction between video and audio recording under state law.
Critical Restrictions on Nanny Cams
- No audio: A nanny cam that records sound without the caregiver's consent violates Florida's all-party consent law and constitutes a third-degree felony
- No cameras in private spaces: Placing a hidden camera in a bathroom, a live-in nanny's bedroom, or any area where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy may violate Fla. Stat. § 810.145 (digital voyeurism)
- Purpose and place both matter: Digital voyeurism is not made out by secret recording alone. Under § 810.145(2)(a)1., the recording must be of someone dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body, at a place and time where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it must be done for amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or to degrade, exploit, or abuse the person
- Household and employer status raises the penalty: A homeowner who employs the caregiver holds a "position of authority or trust" as § 810.145(1)(d) defines it, so a violation by a person 19 or older triggers the mandatory one-degree reclassification in § 810.145(7)(b)
Nursing Home and Elder Care Cameras
Florida does not currently have a specific statute authorizing or prohibiting surveillance cameras in nursing home rooms. The Florida legislature has considered bills to allow residents or their families to install electronic monitoring devices in nursing home rooms, but as of March 2026, no comprehensive "granny cam" law has been enacted. Families considering in-room cameras in care facilities should consult the facility's policies and an attorney familiar with Florida elder law.
Hidden Cameras and Digital Voyeurism (Fla. Stat. § 810.145)
Florida's digital voyeurism statute, Fla. Stat. § 810.145, criminalizes using or installing an imaging device to secretly view, broadcast, or record a person who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body at a place and time when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, when it is done for one of the purposes the statute lists. This law was originally titled "video voyeurism" but was renamed to "digital voyeurism" in 2024 to reflect modern technology.
What the Law Prohibits
Under Fla. Stat. § 810.145(2)(a)1., digital voyeurism has several elements, and the state must prove all of them together. They are not alternatives:
- A listed purpose. The person must act for his or her own amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading, exploiting, or abusing another person
- Intentional use or installation of an imaging device to secretly view, broadcast, or record another person
- No knowledge or consent from the person recorded
- A protected subject and setting. The person recorded must be dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body, at a place and time when he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy
The statute defines its own terms narrowly. "Privately exposing the body" means "exposing a sexual organ" (§ 810.145(1)(e)). The privacy clause qualifies the conduct clause rather than standing on its own, so secretly recording a fully clothed person who is simply in a private place does not by itself meet this subsection, though it may create other legal exposure, including under the audio-recording rules above.
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is also defined, as circumstances under which a reasonable person would believe he or she could fully disrobe in privacy, including the interior of a residential dwelling, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth (§ 810.145(1)(f)).
The law also covers anyone who permits the use or installation of such a device for the benefit of another, anyone who uses an imaging device to record under or through the clothing another person is wearing, and anyone who disseminates images they know or have reason to believe were created through voyeuristic recording.
Definition of Imaging Device
The statute broadly defines "imaging device" to include any mechanical, digital, or electronic viewing device, still camera, camcorder, motion picture camera, or any other instrument capable of recording, storing, or transmitting visual images. This definition covers smartphones, hidden spy cameras, modified smoke detectors, and any other concealed recording equipment.
Penalties for Digital Voyeurism
| Offense | Age of Offender | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| First offense | Under 19 | First-degree misdemeanor | 1 year in jail, $1,000 fine |
| First offense | 19 or older | Third-degree felony | 5 years in prison, $5,000 fine |
| Repeat offense | Any age | Second-degree felony | 15 years in prison, $10,000 fine |
| Dissemination of images | Any age | Third-degree felony | 5 years in prison, $5,000 fine |
| Commercial dissemination | Any age | Third-degree felony | 5 years in prison, $5,000 fine |
| Offender is a family or household member of the victim, or holds a position of authority or trust | 19 or older | Felony reclassified one degree higher (third-degree becomes second-degree) | 15 years in prison, $10,000 fine |
| Offense against a child under 16 by a person responsible for the child's welfare, a school or VPK employee, or a person 24 or older | 18 or older (24 or older in the third category) | Second-degree felony | 15 years in prison, $10,000 fine |
Two enhancements are easy to miss and matter for the scenarios on this page. Section 810.145(7)(b) directs that when a person 19 or older violates the statute and is a family or household member of the victim or holds a "position of authority or trust" with the victim, the court shall reclassify the felony to the next higher degree, and the offense is ranked one level above its normal sentencing level. Section 810.145(1)(d) defines that position to include a relative, caregiver, coach, employer, or other person who can exercise undue influence over the victim, which captures many household and workplace camera situations. Section 810.145(8) separately makes the offense a second-degree felony when it is committed against a child younger than 16 by someone responsible for the child's welfare, by a school or voluntary prekindergarten employee against a student, or by any person 24 or older.
Voyeurism vs. Digital Voyeurism
Florida also has a separate voyeurism statute, Fla. Stat. § 810.14. It applies when a person, with lewd, lascivious, or indecent intent, secretly observes another person located in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance that provides a reasonable expectation of privacy, or secretly observes another person's intimate areas where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. That intent element is what separates it from § 810.145, and the statute is not written in terms of whether a camera was used. This "peeping Tom" law is a first-degree misdemeanor for the first offense and escalates to a third-degree felony after two or more prior convictions or adjudications of delinquency under the section.
Workplace Surveillance Cameras
Florida employers generally have the right to install video surveillance cameras in the workplace, but this right is not unlimited.
Permitted Camera Locations
Employers may place cameras in areas where employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including:
- Lobbies, reception areas, and common hallways
- Warehouses, production floors, and retail sales areas
- Parking lots and exterior building areas
- Break rooms and cafeterias (though this is more contested)
Prohibited Camera Locations
Cameras are prohibited in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Restrooms and bathrooms
- Locker rooms and changing areas
- Private offices with closed doors (depending on circumstances)
- Any location where employees might undress
Notice Requirements
Florida does not impose a general statutory duty on employers to post camera signage. What Fla. Stat. § 810.145(5)(b) does is exempt from the digital voyeurism statute any "security system when a written notice is conspicuously posted on the premises stating that a video surveillance system has been installed for the purpose of security for the premises." Posting that notice is a safe harbor, not a mandate, and it is a safe harbor only from § 810.145. It does not authorize audio recording under § 934.03, and it does not permit cameras in dressing rooms or restrooms under § 877.26. Section 810.145(5)(c) separately exempts a video surveillance device installed so that its presence is clearly and immediately obvious.
Even though the notice is not required, employers should post clear signage notifying employees and visitors that video surveillance is in use. It preserves the exemption and removes any argument that the recording was secret.
Audio Monitoring in the Workplace
Recording workplace conversations without every employee's consent is illegal under Florida's all-party consent law. Employers who wish to record audio in the workplace must inform all employees and obtain their consent. Many employers address this through written workplace policies that employees acknowledge upon hiring.
Failing to obtain consent for audio monitoring exposes employers to both criminal penalties (third-degree felony under Fla. Stat. § 934.03) and civil liability (minimum $1,000 in liquidated damages per violation under Fla. Stat. § 934.10).
Merchant and Retail Surveillance Restrictions
Florida has a specific statute addressing surveillance in retail settings. Under Fla. Stat. § 877.26, it is unlawful for any merchant to use video cameras or other visual surveillance devices to observe or record customers in dressing rooms, fitting rooms, changing rooms, or restrooms when such a room provides a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This prohibition applies to both direct observation and electronic monitoring. The statute does leave a narrow allowance: a merchant may directly observe a customer from outside such a room if the observation is within the scope of the merchant's duties and does not otherwise violate § 810.14 or § 810.145, or if the customer invites or consents to the merchant's presence in the room.
A merchant who violates the prohibition commits a misdemeanor of the first degree under Fla. Stat. § 877.26(3), punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, which means up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
HOA and Community Association Camera Rules
Homeowners' association camera regulations in Florida are governed by a combination of state statutes and individual community governing documents.
HOA Authority Over Common Area Cameras
Under Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes, homeowners' associations have the authority to install security cameras in common areas, subject to their governing documents. The installation may be considered a "material alteration" that requires a vote of the membership or board approval, depending on the community's declaration of covenants.
Homeowner Camera Installations
Many HOAs require architectural review board approval before a homeowner can install exterior cameras. Common HOA restrictions include:
- Placement limitations: Cameras must be mounted in approved locations
- Aesthetic requirements: Cameras must be a certain color or size to match the community's appearance standards
- Direction restrictions: Cameras cannot be aimed at other homeowners' units or private spaces
- Audio prohibitions: HOAs may prohibit audio-recording cameras in common areas
Camera Footage as Official Records
In Florida condominiums and HOAs, security camera footage may qualify as an official record of the association. Under Florida law, association members generally have the right to inspect and copy official records, which could include security footage. Associations should establish clear retention and access policies for surveillance recordings.
Penalties for Violating Florida Surveillance Laws
Florida imposes serious penalties for unlawful surveillance and recording. The severity depends on which statute is violated.
Criminal Penalties
| Violation | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegal audio recording (wiretapping) | § 934.03 | Third-degree felony | 5 years in prison, $5,000 fine |
| Digital voyeurism (adult offender) | § 810.145 | Third-degree felony | 5 years in prison, $5,000 fine |
| Digital voyeurism (under 19) | § 810.145 | First-degree misdemeanor | 1 year in jail, $1,000 fine |
| Repeat digital voyeurism | § 810.145 | Second-degree felony | 15 years in prison, $10,000 fine |
| Digital voyeurism by a family or household member or a person in a position of authority or trust (19 or older) | § 810.145(7)(b) | Reclassified one degree higher, so second-degree felony | 15 years in prison, $10,000 fine |
| Voyeurism (peeping, first offense) | § 810.14 | First-degree misdemeanor | 1 year in jail, $1,000 fine |
| Merchant dressing room surveillance | § 877.26 | First-degree misdemeanor | 1 year in jail, $1,000 fine |
Civil Liability
Victims of unlawful surveillance in Florida can also pursue civil remedies. Under Fla. Stat. § 934.10, any person whose communication is intercepted in violation of the wiretapping statute may bring a civil action and recover:
- Actual damages suffered
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher
- Reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs
- Punitive damages in appropriate cases
- Equitable relief, including injunctions to prevent further violations
Separately, victims of voyeurism or intrusion upon seclusion may sue for invasion of privacy under Florida common law.
How to Stay Compliant
To legally operate surveillance cameras in Florida, follow these guidelines:
- Use video-only recording whenever possible and disable audio on outdoor or public-facing cameras
- Post visible signage stating that video surveillance is in use on the premises
- Keep cameras aimed at your own property and public areas, not at neighbors' private spaces
- Never place cameras in bathrooms, bedrooms, changing areas, or any space where privacy is expected
- Obtain written consent before recording any audio, whether in the home, workplace, or commercial setting
- Check your HOA rules before installing exterior cameras if you live in a community association
- Consult an attorney if you are unsure whether a specific camera placement is legal
Related Florida Camera and Privacy Laws
- Florida Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in Florida.
- Florida Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- Florida Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- Florida Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in Florida.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
- HOA Security Camera Rules
- Neighbor Security Camera Laws
- Nanny Cam Laws
- Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
- Landlord Security Camera Laws
More Florida Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I put a security camera in my own home in Florida?
Yes. Florida homeowners can install video-only security cameras in common areas of their home such as living rooms, kitchens, and hallways. However, you cannot place cameras in areas where anyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms or guest bedrooms where someone is staying. You also cannot record audio without every person's consent under Fla. Stat. § 934.03, so disable microphones on indoor cameras or inform everyone in the home that audio is being recorded.
Is it legal to record audio on a Ring doorbell in Florida?
Recording audio on a Ring doorbell in Florida is legally risky. Florida is an all-party consent state under Fla. Stat. § 934.03, which means every person whose voice is captured must consent to the recording. Since a doorbell camera passively records conversations of visitors, delivery workers, and neighbors who may not know they are being recorded, this could violate the wiretapping statute. The safest approach is to disable audio recording or post clear signage near the doorbell notifying visitors that audio and video recording is in progress.
Can my employer record me on camera at work in Florida?
Florida employers can use video-only cameras in common work areas like lobbies, hallways, warehouses, and retail floors. Cameras cannot be placed in restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, or other spaces where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Florida law does not impose a general duty to post camera signage, but conspicuously posted written notice is the condition that qualifies a security system for the exemption in Fla. Stat. § 810.145(5)(b), so employers should post it. Audio recording in the workplace requires the consent of all parties under Fla. Stat. § 934.03, and employers who record audio without consent face felony charges and civil liability.
What are the penalties for hidden camera voyeurism in Florida?
Under Fla. Stat. § 810.145 (digital voyeurism), an adult who secretly uses an imaging device, without consent, to view or record someone who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body at a place and time where that person reasonably expects privacy, and who does so for amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit or to degrade, exploit, or abuse the person, faces a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. A person under 19 faces a first-degree misdemeanor with up to 1 year in jail. Repeat offenders face a second-degree felony with up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. If the offender is 19 or older and is a family or household member of the victim or holds a position of authority or trust, such as a relative, caregiver, coach, or employer, the court must reclassify the felony one degree higher. Distributing or selling voyeuristic images is a separate third-degree felony.
Can my neighbor point a security camera at my property in Florida?
A neighbor can aim a camera at areas visible from public view, such as the street or their own property that incidentally captures part of yours. However, pointing a camera directly into your windows, over a privacy fence into your backyard, or into any area where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy may constitute intrusion upon seclusion under Florida common law. Whether a particular camera crosses that line is decided case by case on the facts, including how the camera is mounted and what it can actually see. If a neighbor's camera is invasively aimed at your private spaces, you may have grounds for a civil lawsuit.
Updates
Corrected the digital voyeurism section to include the purpose element and the conjunctive elements of Fla. Stat. 810.145(2)(a), clarified that posted camera notice is a statutory exemption rather than an employer duty, added the mandatory penalty reclassification for family members and people in a position of authority or trust, gave the specific first-degree misdemeanor penalty for merchant dressing-room surveillance, corrected the description of the separate voyeurism statute, and removed an uncited case reference that described a preliminary-injunction ruling as a merits holding.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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
§ 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)
§ 934.03Interception 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)
§ 810.14Voyeurism prohibited; penalties.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of voyeurism when he or she, with lewd, lascivious, or indecent intent:(a) Secretly observes another person when the other person is located in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance and such location provides a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Secretly observes another person’s intimate areas in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, when the other person is located in a public or private dwelling, structure, or conveyance. As used in this paragraph, the term “intimate area” means any portion of a person’s body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view. (2) A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree for the first violation, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (3) A person who violates this section and who has been previously convicted or adjudicated delinquent two or more times of any violation of this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · 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: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re Standard Jury Inst.-Criminal Cases (Supreme Court of Florida 2000, 765 So. 2d 692)“…Comment This instruction is based on section 810.14, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). It is error to inform the…”
- Kenneth Isaac Parkerson v. State of Florida (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2015, 163 So. 3d 683)“…allenge to the Voyeurism Statute The voyeurism statute, section 810.14, Florida Statutes (2011), provides, in pertinent part:…”
- United States v. Watkins (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2026)“…20;1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335;1 D.C. Code § 22-3531;3 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 810.14;2 Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-61; Haw. Rev. S…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Video Recording Laws: What You Can and Cannot Record (2026), Florida Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Digital Voyeurism Penalties (2026)
§ 877.26Direct observation, videotaping, or visual surveillance of customers in merchant’s dressing room, etc., prohibited; penalties.In force
(1) It is unlawful for any merchant to directly observe or make use of video cameras or other visual surveillance devices to observe or record customers in the merchant’s dressing room, fitting room, changing room, or restroom when such room provides a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, a merchant may directly observe a customer from outside such room if the observation is within the scope of the merchant’s duties and the observation does not otherwise violate s. 810.14 or s. 810.145 or if the customer invites or consents to the presence of the merchant in the room. (2) As used in this subsection, the term “merchant” means an owner or operator, or the agent, consignee, employee, lessee, or officer of an owner or operator, of any premises or apparatus used for retail purchase or sale of any merchandise. (3) Any merchant who violates subsection (1) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- STATE OF FLORIDA v. WILLIAM GRAHAM MARCELLUS HAYES, II (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2020)“…sis added). Likewise, as noted by the trial court in Kraft, section 877.26, Florida Statutes (2019), prohibits merchants from “obser…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 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)
§ 775.082Penalties; applicability of sentencing structures; mandatory minimum sentences for certain reoffenders previously released from prison.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
(1)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by death if the proceeding held to determine sentence according to the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 results in a determination that such person shall be punished by death, otherwise such person shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be ineligible for parole. (b)1. A person who actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim and who is convicted under s. 782.04 of a capital felony, or an offense that was reclassified as a capital felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment for life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence. If the court finds that life imprisonment is not an appropriate sentence, such person shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of at least 40 years. A person sentenced pursuant to this subparagraph is entitled to a review of his or her sentence in accordance with s. 921.1402(2)(a). 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 291 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Dixon (1973) held Section 775.082, with sections 782.04 and 921.141, constitutional under the test of Furman v. Georgia. Kenneth R. Jackson v. State of Florida (2017) held that Section 775.082(2)'s automatic life-sentence remedy did not apply after Hurst v. Florida, which invalidated only certain sentencing procedures.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Dixon (Supreme Court of Florida 1973, 283 So. 2d 1)✓Four consolidated murder cases challenged Florida's post-Furman capital scheme; the Florida Supreme Court held sections 775.082, 782.04 and 921.141 constitutional, reading the listed aggravating and mitigating circumstances as definite enough to channel sentencing discretion.
- Woods v. State (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1999, 740 So. 2d 20)✓Woods committed an unarmed robbery about a month after release from prison and was sentenced to 15 years as a prison releasee reoffender under section 775.082(8); the court affirmed, rejecting separation of powers, vagueness and equal protection challenges.
- Kenneth R. Jackson v. State of Florida (Supreme Court of Florida 2017, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 361)✓Jackson was sentenced to death for a murder during a sexual battery on an 11-1 jury recommendation; the court found Hurst error but held section 775.082(2)'s life-sentence remedy inapplicable, since Hurst voided only part of section 921.141, and ordered a new penalty phase.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hit and Run Laws in the United States (2026 Guide), How Long Is a Life Sentence in Florida? (2026 Guide), Florida's New Hit-and-Run Law Lets Courts Order Restitution for Property Damage
§ 775.083Fines.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
(1) A person who has been convicted of an offense other than a capital felony may be sentenced to pay a fine in addition to any punishment described in s. 775.082; when specifically authorized by statute, he or she may be sentenced to pay a fine in lieu of any punishment described in s. 775.082. A person who has been convicted of a noncriminal violation may be sentenced to pay a fine. Fines for designated crimes and for noncriminal violations shall not exceed:(a) $15,000, when the conviction is of a life felony. (b) $10,000, when the conviction is of a felony of the first or second degree. (c) $5,000, when the conviction is of a felony of the third degree. (d) $1,000, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor of the first degree. (e) $500, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation. (f) Any higher amount equal to double the pecuniary gain derived from the offense by the offender or double the pecuniary loss suffered by the victim. (g) Any higher amount specifically authorized by statute. Fines imposed in this subsection shall be deposited by the clerk of the court in the fine and forfeiture fund established pursuant to s. 142.01.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · 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
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Pullam v. State (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2011, 55 So. 3d 674)“…ten judgment for fines and costs includes a $200 fine under section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2009). Fines under section 775.083 are…”
- Stone v. State (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1986, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2562)“…stem. In contrast, a fine imposed as punishment pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (1985), is placed into a government's g…”
- Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (Supreme Court of Florida 2004, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 568)“…ecked and completed. Fines imposed as part of a sentence to section 775.083, Florida Statutes, are to be recorded on the sentence pag…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Is Blackmail Illegal in Florida? Extortion Laws and Penalties, Florida Felony Degrees and Misdemeanor Penalties (2026 Guide)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Florida Statutes § 720.31 (Recreational leaseholds; right to acquire; escalation clauses.) · Florida Statutes § 934.01 (Legislative findings.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- Florida Statute § 934.03 - Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications(flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Statute § 810.145 - Digital Voyeurism(flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Statute § 810.14 - Voyeurism Prohibited; Penalties(leg.state.fl.us).gov
- Florida Statute § 877.26 - Merchant Video Surveillance Restrictions(leg.state.fl.us).gov
- Florida Statute § 934.10 - Civil Remedies for Unlawful Interception(m.flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Chapter 934 - Security of Communications (Full Chapter)(flsenate.gov).gov
- Florida Chapter 720 - Homeowners Associations(leg.state.fl.us).gov
- Florida Statute § 775.083 - Fines(leg.state.fl.us).gov
- Florida Statute § 775.082 - Penalties; Applicability of Sentencing Structures(leg.state.fl.us)