ixtow
Founder's Club Member
See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.
Bingo.
FS 934.02 Definitions. said:—As used in this chapter:
(1) “Wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception including the use of such connection in a switching station furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of intrastate, interstate, or foreign communications or communications affecting intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce.
(2) “Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
(3) “Intercept” means 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.
And here is the Horse's Mouth: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0900-0999/0934/Sections/0934.02.html
Instead of re-writing the whole section, which is huge and annoying, they just changed the definition of what "Oral" means; they changed it to exclude instances where there is no expectation of privacy. They used the words 'exhibiting an expectation' and 'circumstances justifying such expectation.' In the absence of those conditions, the statute does not apply.
Such that, a LEO says "Hey, can we talk privately over here? Just wanna talk, no big deal..." There ya go... Exhibited becomes expected... If you step aside, where the expectation and exhibited desire becomes justified. Don't fall for that one.
Now I ask, what of the veracity of those who cited in previous posts, and conveniently skipped this part? They obviously found it... All they had to do was open their eyes and face forward... Who can find one and claim not to have found the other? Then, start a fight over it? Spread FUD in the name of it? Yeah... This is why I hate being the Fact Welfare. Oh my goodness, all these trees! No, I never saw a forest...
The 'circumstances justifying such expectation' is what will get this arrest tossed, and why it is a False Arrest and Gross Abuse of Power. Since it is not merely Settled Law, but repeatedly and outspokenly Settled Law... No Qualified Immunity can exist, though, it will probably be extended anyway...
I hope the victim crucifies them.
Last edited: