EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsFlorida Laws flagFlorida Laws
Florida flag

Florida

Florida Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of November 2, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed November 11, 202619 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 2, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 2, 2026. · 18 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Florida Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules

Florida is an all-party consent state, often called a two-party consent state. Everyone taking part in a conversation must agree before it is recorded, not just two people (Fla. Stat. § 934.03). The law covers any wire, oral, or electronic communication, which includes phone calls and private in-person conversations.

Recording a private conversation without everyone's consent is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The victim can also sue for civil damages on top of that.

Florida recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleAll-party (every participant must consent)
Main statuteFla. Stat. § 934.03
When recording is illegalAny wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted without consent of all parties
Narrow citizen exceptionsChild under 18 recording evidence of abuse against them (§ 934.03(2)(k)); parent or guardian of a child under 18 (§ 934.03(2)(l)); person protected by an active injunction (§ 934.03(2)(m))
Criminal penaltyThird-degree felony: up to 5 years prison, $5,000 fine
Civil remedyDamages of at least $1,000 or $100/day (whichever higher); a court may also award punitive damages and attorney fees
Hidden camerasDigital voyeurism (§ 810.145): third-degree felony for age 19+
Recording policeGenerally lawful in public: no reasonable expectation of privacy for on-duty officers

For full detail on each of these rules, see the in-depth guides below.

Florida requires every party to consent before a conversation is recorded; recording a private conversation without consent is a third-degree felony with up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Florida is an all-party consent state, with only three narrow exceptions for private citizens.

Recording in-person conversations in Florida

Florida over-the-shoulder crop of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation, no faces visible

Florida's recording law makes it a crime to intentionally intercept, or attempt to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication without authorization (Florida Statute § 934.03(1)). To intercept means to acquire the contents of a communication, by hearing them or otherwise, through an electronic, mechanical, or other device (§ 934.02(3)).

The usual way to record lawfully is under § 934.03(2)(d), which requires all parties to the communication to give prior consent. Three narrow exceptions, covered in the next section, let a private citizen record without the other party's consent.

Outside those, there is no general citizen one-party exception. A one-party rule is the kind federal law uses. Under it, a person who is a party to a conversation, or who has one party's prior consent, may record it, unless the purpose is to commit a crime or a tort, which is a civil wrong (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)).

For an in-person conversation, there is one more requirement before the law protects it: the speaker must expect privacy, and the situation must make that expectation reasonable. An "oral communication" under § 934.02(2) means any utterance made by a person who exhibits an expectation that it is not subject to interception, under circumstances that justify that expectation.

This is the same reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard courts use in Fourth Amendment analysis. Casual conversation at a loud public bar likely does not qualify. A hushed exchange in a private office almost certainly does.

A 2004 Florida Attorney General informal opinion analyzed § 934.03 in the context of audio recording in municipal (city) offices. The AG concluded that citizens in city offices may retain a reasonable expectation of privacy for oral communications. The AG also concluded that recording without consent would not generally be permissible there, and recommended video-only surveillance with posted signage as the compliant alternative.

The practical rule is straightforward: before you press record on any in-person conversation in Florida, you must inform every person present and obtain their consent.

Three narrow exceptions for private citizens

Florida's all-party rule is not absolute. Section 934.03(2) contains three exceptions a private citizen can rely on. All three are narrow, and two of them limit what you may do with the recording afterward.

Children under 18 (§ 934.03(2)(k)). A child under 18 may intercept and record an in-person (oral) communication the child is a party to. The child must have reasonable grounds to believe the recording will capture a statement by another party that the other party intends to commit, is committing, or has committed an unlawful sexual act or an unlawful act of physical force or violence against the child. This paragraph does not itself restrict who may receive the recording, unlike the parent exception below.

Parents and legal guardians (§ 934.03(2)(l)). A parent or legal guardian of a child under 18 may intercept and record an in-person (oral) communication the child is a party to. The parent or guardian must have reasonable grounds to believe the recording will capture a statement by the other party that the other party intends to commit, is committing, or has committed an unlawful sexual act or an unlawful act of physical force or violence against the child.

A recording made under this exception must be provided to a law enforcement agency and may be used as evidence of that crime. It may not be otherwise passed on or shared.

People protected by an injunction (§ 934.03(2)(m)). An injunction is a court order telling a person not to take some action. This exception covers a person protected by an active temporary or final injunction for repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence under § 784.046, stalking under § 784.0485, or domestic violence under § 741.30. It also covers a person protected by any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward that person.

Such a person may intercept and record a wire, oral, or electronic communication received in violation of that injunction or order. Unlike the first two exceptions, this one also reaches wire (phone) and electronic communications, not just in-person conversations.

The recording may be provided to a law enforcement agency, an attorney, or a court as evidence of the violation, if the subject of the order has been served or is on notice that the conduct is prohibited. It may not be otherwise passed on or shared.

None of these exceptions is a general right to record. If your situation does not fit one of them, the all-party consent rule applies.

The sharing limits in the parent exception, paragraph (l), and the injunction exception, paragraph (m), are part of the authorization itself. Passing a recording made under either of those paragraphs to anyone beyond the permitted recipients falls outside what the statute allows.

Recording phone calls in Florida

Florida's all-party consent rule applies equally to phone calls, whether landline, cell, or VoIP. You cannot secretly record a call even as a participant. To record legally, announce at the start of the call that it is being recorded and get affirmative consent from everyone on the line. If anyone objects, stop recording.

The privacy test described above is part of the definition of an oral (in-person) communication, not a wire (phone) communication. Florida defines a wire communication by how it travels, through wire, cable, or a similar connection (§ 934.02(1)), and that definition does not include a privacy test.

When a call connects Florida with a one-party consent state, Florida's recording law (Chapter 934) does not say which state's law governs, and no single rule settles it. Because Florida's law may apply to the Florida participant's side of the call, getting all-party consent is the only safe practice for any call touching Florida.

Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits one-party recording, but it sets a minimum and leaves Florida's stricter rule in force.

If you are unsure how Florida's rule compares with the other caller's state, our recording consent checker shows which rule controls when the two states disagree.

Businesses that record customer service calls must provide clear notice before recording begins. Continued participation after that notice is generally treated as implied consent, but all-party consent principles still apply. See the Florida Phone Call Recording Laws page for VoIP, business, and interstate-call details.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Florida a dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling, soft interior daylight

Silent video recording on your own property (a front-door camera, a dashcam, or a nanny cam aimed at a common area) is generally lawful as long as no audio is captured without consent. The moment a camera records private conversations, § 934.03's all-party consent requirement applies to the audio track.

Secretly recording a person who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body, at a place and time where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, is separately criminal under Fla. Stat. § 810.145 regardless of any consent analysis. The statute's examples of such a place include the interior of a residential dwelling, a bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth.

The offense also carries a purpose element, meaning the reason for the recording matters. The recording must be made for the offender's own amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or to degrade, exploit, or abuse the person recorded (§ 810.145(2)(a)1). Another part of the statute, Section 810.145(2)(a)3, separately reaches recording under or through the clothing another person is wearing.

Taken together, these elements mean digital voyeurism does not reach every covert recording made in a private place. Secretly recording a fully clothed conversation in a restroom is not a § 810.145 offense, though capturing that conversation's audio can still violate § 934.03. Effective October 1, 2024, Chapter 2024-132 renamed this offense from "video voyeurism" to "digital voyeurism" to reflect the statute's coverage of all modern imaging devices, from smartphones to hidden pinhole cameras.

Penalties under § 810.145 turn on the offender's age. A person 19 or older who commits digital voyeurism commits a third-degree felony (up to 5 years, $5,000 fine). A person under 19 commits a first-degree misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $1,000 fine). Distributing or selling such recordings is a separate third-degree felony each time.

Three circumstances elevate the offense. (1) 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 over the victim, the offense is reclassified one degree higher; for example, a third-degree felony becomes a second-degree felony. (2) If the offender has a prior conviction for any violation of § 810.145, the offense is elevated to a second-degree felony.

(3) The offense is also elevated to a second-degree felony if the offender is 18 or older and responsible for the welfare of the victim, a child under 16; is 18 or older, works at a school or prekindergarten program, and the victim is one of its students; or is 24 or older and the victim is under 16. The penalty table below lists the second-degree felony maximum.

See the Florida Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Florida Security Camera Laws pages for detailed rules on residential cameras, HOA settings, and landlord obligations.

Penalties for illegal recording in Florida

Florida wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge's bench

Criminal penalties

A standard § 934.03 violation is a third-degree felony.

A narrow exception in § 934.03(4)(b) lowers the penalty for some radio interceptions. It covers a first offense involving an unscrambled radio communication, not committed for a tortious or illegal purpose or for commercial gain. That offense is a first-degree misdemeanor, or a second-degree misdemeanor for the radio portion of a cell or cordless phone call, public land mobile radio, or paging.

Florida recording penalties range from up to 60 days and a $500 fine under the Halo Law to up to 15 years and a $10,000 fine for aggravated digital voyeurism.
Most illegal recording in Florida is a felony; penalties climb with the conduct, the offender's age and any prior conviction.
OffenseClassificationMax penalty
Illegal interception (§ 934.03)Third-degree felony5 years, $5,000
Disclosing intercepted communicationsThird-degree felony5 years, $5,000
Using illegally obtained informationThird-degree felony5 years, $5,000
Digital voyeurism, age 19+ (§ 810.145)Third-degree felony5 years, $5,000
Digital voyeurism, under 19 (§ 810.145)First-degree misdemeanor1 year, $1,000
Digital voyeurism, prior conviction; offender 24+ and victim under 16; or offender 18+ responsible for a child under 16 or employed at the victim's school (§ 810.145)Second-degree felony15 years, $10,000
Violating Halo Law 25-foot zone (§ 843.31)Second-degree misdemeanor60 days, $500

Civil remedies under § 934.10

A person whose communication was unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used may sue for actual damages, with a minimum of $1,000 or $100 per day of violation, whichever is higher. Actual damages are money that matches the loss the person actually suffered.

That person may also seek punitive damages, which are extra money a court may award on top of actual damages in some cases where the conduct was especially harmful, along with attorney fees and preliminary or equitable relief. Equitable relief is a court order to do or stop doing something, instead of paying money. The lawsuit must be filed within two years after the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

Recording the police in Florida

You have the right to record police officers performing their public duties. The Eleventh Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Florida, has confirmed that the First Amendment protects photographing and videotaping police conduct, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

Florida's recording law points the same way. An officer performing official duties in public generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in those interactions under § 934.02(2)'s oral communication standard, described above. So recording those interactions generally does not trigger § 934.03.

Ford v. City of Boynton Beach (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 4, 2021, on rehearing), a Florida appeals court decision, shows how this works. A mother recorded officers standing on a public sidewalk about 20 feet from where shopping-center security guards were holding her minor son, with bystanders around. The court held that the officers could not as a matter of law have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, so there was no probable cause to arrest the mother who recorded them.

Probable cause is the standard police generally must meet before an arrest: facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed.

Phone calls are different. The privacy element belongs to the definition of an oral communication, not a wire (phone) communication. So secretly recording a phone call with an officer can still be charged under § 934.03.

The law-enforcement one-party consent carve-out in § 934.03(2)(c) applies only to investigative or law enforcement officers. It does not give private citizens a one-party right.

The 2025 Halo Law (Fla. Stat. § 843.31) restricts physical proximity, not recording. It was codified by 2024 Fla. Laws ch. 2024-85 and took effect January 1, 2025.

After a first responder verbally warns you to step back, approaching or remaining within 25 feet with intent to impede, threaten, or harass is a second-degree misdemeanor (up to 60 days, $500 fine). The law does not ban recording, does not authorize device seizure, and does not amend § 934.03.

See the Florida Laws on Recording Police page for Eleventh Circuit case details and a discussion of the Halo Law's constitutionality.

Special topics in Florida

Federal overlay: ECPA and the 11th Circuit TCPA vacatur

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) protects wire, oral, and electronic communications, including phone conversations and email. Its one-party rule (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) sets a floor, meaning a minimum. It does not displace (override) Florida's stricter all-party rule in § 934.03, whether the call is intrastate (within Florida) or interstate (across state lines).

Separately, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's One-to-One TCPA Consent Rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), mandate issued April 30, 2025. The TCPA is the federal law that, among other things, makes it unlawful to make certain calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without the called party's prior express consent. To vacate a rule is to set it aside.

The rule's one-to-one and logically-and-topically-related requirements are not in force in Florida. The underlying TCPA baseline consent requirements remain.

Healthcare: HIPAA and § 934.03

Florida healthcare providers must satisfy § 934.03's all-party consent rule before recording any patient call or telehealth session. See the Florida Medical Recording Laws page.

Schools: FERPA layered on § 934.03

FERPA is a federal law that gives parents certain rights over their children's education records. Audio or video recordings that are directly related to a student and maintained by an educational institution are FERPA education records under 34 CFR § 99.3.

Recording a private disciplinary or faculty meeting requires every participant's consent under § 934.03. See the Florida School Recording Laws page.

Debt collectors: CFPB Regulation F retention

The CFPB is the federal agency Congress established to regulate how consumer financial products and services are offered and provided. Its Regulation F (12 CFR § 1006.100(b)) requires debt collectors who record calls to retain each recording for three years.

This retention obligation applies in addition to § 934.03's consent requirement. Recording without all-party consent violates Florida law regardless of the federal retention rule.

Workplace and NLRB GC Memo 25-07

Florida's all-party consent rule applies fully in the workplace.

The NLRB is an independent federal agency that acts against unfair labor practices by private-sector employers and unions. NLRB Acting General Counsel Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025) also directs the agency's regional offices to treat surreptitious (secret) recording of collective bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice under NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). That federal prosecutorial guidance applies on top of § 934.03 for Florida employers and unions. See the Florida Workplace Recording Laws page.

Wearable recording devices

AI voice recorders, smartwatches with microphones, and smart glasses are subject to § 934.03 the same as any other audio device. Outside the three narrow exceptions in § 934.03(2)(k), (2)(l), and (2)(m) described above, Florida has no general crime-evidence exception for private citizens. Recording with any audio-capable device in a private setting requires the consent of every person in the conversation.

Emerging FSCA litigation: website tracking pixels

A developing line of cases tests whether website tracking technologies (session-replay scripts, Meta and Google pixels) constitute unlawful interceptions under the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA), the law that contains § 934.03.

In W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-1068-JSS-RMN, 2025 WL 722892 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2025), a federal district court denied dismissal of an FSCA claim based on health-data pixels. That means the court let the claim go forward instead of throwing it out at the start of the case. This is a pleading-stage ruling at the district court level only, not a merits decision and not binding appellate precedent.

Website operators and healthcare providers should consult privacy counsel about pixel-related exposure under § 934.03.

Court proceedings and public meetings

Florida state courts generally allow cameras and audio recording of trial and appellate proceedings under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.450, subject to the presiding judge's authority to control decorum and ensure the fair administration of justice.

Federal courts sitting in Florida take the opposite approach: broadcasting, recording, and photographing a proceeding is generally prohibited (see, e.g., M.D. Fla. Local Rule 5.01).

Separately, Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law (Fla. Stat. § 286.011) guarantees public access to meetings of governmental boards and commissions. A public board may not prohibit a citizen from making a silent, nondisruptive audio or video recording of an open meeting.

  • October 1, 2024: Fla. Stat. § 810.145 renamed from "video voyeurism" to "digital voyeurism" by 2024 Fla. Laws ch. 2024-132, reflecting expanded coverage of modern digital imaging devices.
  • January 1, 2025: Halo Law (Fla. Stat. § 843.31) took effect, making it a misdemeanor to approach or stay within 25 feet of a first responder after a verbal warning with intent to impede, threaten, or harass; does not amend § 934.03.
  • January 24, 2025: Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's One-to-One TCPA Consent Rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC (mandate issued April 30, 2025), binding in Florida.
  • March 6, 2025: W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc. (M.D. Fla.) denied dismissal of an FSCA pixel-tracking claim at the pleading stage.
  • June 25, 2025: NLRB GC Memo 25-07 treats surreptitious recording of collective bargaining as a per se unfair labor practice, stacking on Florida's all-party consent rule.

Florida recording laws in depth

Want to know more? Each page below covers a specific recording context in detail.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Florida laws

Florida a hand reaching toward a wall-mounted intercom speaker panel, a blurred apartment lobby behind

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Florida attorney.

More Florida Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Florida a two-party consent state?

Yes. Florida requires consent from every party, not just two, before recording any wire, oral, or electronic communication under Fla. Stat. § 934.03. This makes it one of the stricter recording-law states in the country.

Can I record a conversation without the other person knowing in Florida?

Generally no. Secretly recording a private conversation is a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine, so you must get consent from every participant before recording. Three narrow statutory exceptions apply. A child under 18 may record an in-person conversation they take part in, on reasonable grounds that it will capture evidence of a sexual or violent act against them (§ 934.03(2)(k)). A parent or legal guardian may record their child's in-person conversation on the same grounds (§ 934.03(2)(l)). A person protected by an active injunction, a court order against another person's conduct, may record a communication received in violation of it (§ 934.03(2)(m)). A recording made under the parent exception may only be given to law enforcement, and one made under (2)(m) only to law enforcement, an attorney, or a court.

Can I record a phone call in Florida?

Only with consent from everyone on the call. Announce at the start that the call will be recorded and get affirmative agreement. If the other party is in a one-party consent state, Florida law may still apply to your side of the call, and no single rule settles which state's law governs, so get everyone's consent. See the Florida Phone Call Recording Laws page for interstate and business-call rules.

Is illegal recording a felony in Florida?

Yes. A standard violation of § 934.03 is a third-degree felony carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. A narrow misdemeanor exception applies only to certain first offenses involving unscrambled radio communications that were not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for commercial gain.

What can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in Florida?

Under § 934.10, you can sue for actual damages (at least $1,000 or $100 per day of violation, whichever is higher), and a court may also award punitive damages and attorney fees. The suit must be filed within two years after you first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Florida?

Silent video recording on your own property is generally legal. The problem is audio: if the camera captures private conversations without consent from everyone in them, § 934.03 generally applies and the recording can be a felony. Secretly recording someone who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body in a bathroom, dressing room, or other place where they reasonably expect privacy also violates the digital voyeurism statute (§ 810.145) when the recording is made for amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or to degrade, exploit, or abuse that person.

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in Florida?

Not without all-party consent. Florida's all-party rule applies fully in the workplace. Even if you are documenting harassment or a hostile work environment, secretly recording a private conversation can be a third-degree felony. Every person in the conversation must consent before you start recording.

Can I record the police in Florida?

Yes, in public. Officers performing public duties generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy under § 934.02(2), so recording them does not trigger § 934.03. A Florida appeals court applied that rule in Ford v. City of Boynton Beach (2021) to officers standing on a public sidewalk near where security guards were holding a mother's minor son. Secretly recording a phone call with an officer is riskier, because phone calls are wire communications and do not depend on that privacy test. The 2025 Halo Law (§ 843.31) makes it a misdemeanor to approach or stay within 25 feet of a first responder after a verbal warning when you intend to impede, threaten, or harass them, but it does not ban recording and does not change the all-party consent rule.

Updates

Corrected: removed statements that HIPAA authorization and FERPA written consent must come before recording, clarified that the Halo Law restricts proximity, not recording, and restated when the two-year deadline to sue starts.

We added the intent requirement (to impede, threaten, or harass) to our summaries of Florida's 25-foot Halo Law, corrected the facts of Ford v. City of Boynton Beach (security guards were holding the son while officers stood nearby), and removed a duplicate citation.

Corrected the source note for W.W. v. Orlando Health: the 'highly technical questions' language quotes an earlier Northern District of Florida decision the court relied on, the court itself held the FSCA claim was plausibly alleged, and the docket link now points to the correct case.

Added Florida's third private-citizen recording exception, for a child under 18 recording evidence of abuse against them (§ 934.03(2)(k)); corrected when digital voyeurism becomes a second-degree felony; stated that no settled rule decides which state's law governs an interstate call; tied the police-recording rule to Ford v. City of Boynton Beach (2021) and noted that phone calls with officers are treated differently; and corrected source notes on misdemeanor tiers, the good-faith defense, minimum civil damages, a repealed FCC rule, and an unsourced claim about a surge of website-tracking lawsuits. Corrected the federal-law paragraph to say federal one-party consent does not displace Florida's all-party rule for interstate calls either, described the child and parent recording exceptions as covering in-person conversations only, described the Ford case accurately, and fixed a changelog entry and two source notes to match.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Added the two narrow exceptions to Florida's all-party consent rule that the page previously omitted, for parents or guardians gathering evidence of a sexual or violent act against their child (Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(l)) and for people protected by an active violence, stalking, or domestic violence injunction (§ 934.03(2)(m)), including the limits on sharing such recordings, and narrowed the description of the § 810.145 digital voyeurism offense to match the statute's actual undressing and purpose elements.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the age threshold for Florida's digital voyeurism child-victim enhancement: the 18-or-older threshold applies only to offenders responsible for the child's welfare or employed at the child's school; a general offender must be 24 or older, not 18.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Full restructure per 2026 template spec: rewrote to clean section hierarchy (AEO lede, at-a-glance table, in-person/phone/hidden-cameras/penalties/police/special-topics/recent-developments/in-depth-index), condensed special-topic subsections to tight paragraphs, added in-depth subpage index grouped by type and relationship, refreshed FAQ to 8 plain-language questions. All load-bearing facts re-verified against Fla. Stat. §§ 934.03, 934.10, 810.145, 843.31, and 934.02 primary sources. Zero em-dashes, zero banlist links. No factual corrections required: all prior verified facts confirmed accurate.

Corrected two factual errors: (1) Removed incorrect claim that citizens satisfy § 934.03(2)(c)'s one-party consent exception (that subsection is law-enforcement-only); replaced with accurate explanation that recording police in public does not violate § 934.03 because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that setting (under the statutory definition of oral communication in § 934.02(2), as applied in Ford v. City of Boynton Beach (2021), not a statutory consent exception). Removed reliance on 2014 AG informal opinion for that proposition. (2) Corrected 47 CFR § 64.501 description: that rule was removed/reserved effective Nov 20, 2017 and is not operative law; section updated accordingly.

Title and meta updated for 2026 with primary-keyword year hook. § 810.145 renamed from 'video voyeurism' to 'digital voyeurism' throughout, reflecting Ch. 2024-132 effective October 1, 2024. Halo Law (§ 843.31) reframed as 25-foot proximity restriction only (no bill number cited, no device-seizure language, scope-limited note that it does NOT amend § 934.03 all-party consent rule). New sections added: Federal Law Overlay (11th Circuit vacatur of FCC One-to-One Rule), Special Contexts (HIPAA, FERPA, CFPB Reg F, NLRB GC 25-07), and Emerging FSCA Litigation (W.W. v. Orlando Health, M.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2025, motion-to-dismiss denial with full recency caveat). Florida recording subtopic index added. Citation count expanded from 8 to 27+.

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs covering AI voice recorders and smart glasses

Sources and References

  1. Florida Statute § 934.03(1) makes it a crime to 'intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept' any wire, oral, or electronic communication without authorization from all parties.
  2. Under § 934.03(2)(d), any person may lawfully intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception. Florida is therefore an all-party consent (two-party consent) state.
  3. A standard violation of § 934.03 is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Under § 934.03(4)(b), a first offense not for a tortious or illegal purpose or commercial gain involving an unscrambled radio communication is a first-degree misdemeanor, or a second-degree misdemeanor for the radio portion of a cellular or cordless phone call, a public land mobile radio communication, or a paging communication.(flsenate.gov).gov
  4. Statutory exceptions under § 934.03(2) include: (a) communication service providers during normal operations; (c) law enforcement officers when a party to the communication has consented and the purpose is obtaining evidence of a crime; (k) a child under 18 recording an oral communication the child is a party to, and (l) a parent or legal guardian recording such an oral communication of the child, when there are reasonable grounds to believe it will capture a statement about an unlawful sexual act or act of physical force or violence against the child; (m) a person protected by an active injunction for repeat, sexual, or dating violence, stalking, or domestic violence, or another court no-contact order, recording a wire, oral, or electronic communication received in violation of it.(flsenate.gov).gov
  5. Florida Statute § 934.03 was most recently amended by Chapter 2024-131, Laws of Florida. The amendment history spans chapters from 1969 through 2024.
  6. Under § 934.10(1), a person whose communications are unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used may bring a civil action to recover: (a) actual damages, but no less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (b) punitive damages; (c) attorney's fees and reasonable litigation costs; and (d) preliminary, equitable, or declaratory relief as appropriate.
  7. Under § 934.10(2), good-faith reliance on a court order, subpoena, or legislative authorization, on a law enforcement request under § 934.09(7), or on a good-faith determination that Florida or federal law, other than the federal one-party consent rule in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), permitted the conduct is a complete defense to any civil, criminal, or administrative action under Florida law.(flsenate.gov).gov
  8. Civil actions under § 934.10 must be filed within two years from the date the claimant reasonably discovers the violation.
  9. Effective October 1, 2024, Chapter 2024-132 renamed Florida's voyeurism offense from 'video voyeurism' to 'digital voyeurism' throughout § 810.145, reflecting the statute's expanded coverage of modern digital imaging devices.
  10. Under § 810.145(2), a person commits digital voyeurism by intentionally using an imaging device to secretly observe, photograph, or record another person dressing or undressing, or with their body privately exposed, without that person's consent and in a location where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, when done for personal gratification, amusement, profit, or degradation.
  11. Penalties under § 810.145: a person under 19 years of age who commits digital voyeurism commits a first-degree misdemeanor; a person 19 or older commits a third-degree felony. 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 with the victim, the felony is reclassified to the next higher degree (§ 810.145(7)(b)).(flsenate.gov).gov
  12. Under § 810.145(3)-(4), digital voyeurism dissemination (knowingly distributing illegally-captured images) and commercial digital voyeurism dissemination (selling such materials) each constitute separate third-degree felonies. Each instance of viewing, recording, or disseminating is a separate offense.
  13. The term 'imaging device' under § 810.145 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.'
  14. The '2025 Halo Law,' codified at Fla. Stat. § 843.31 (enacted by Chapter 2024-85, effective January 1, 2025), prohibits a person from knowingly and willfully approaching or remaining within 25 feet of a first responder engaged in the lawful performance of duties, after receiving a verbal warning from that first responder, when the approach is made with intent to impede duties, threaten physical harm, or harass the responder.
  15. Under § 843.31, 'first responder' includes law enforcement officers, correctional probation officers, firefighters, and emergency medical care providers. 'Harass' is defined as willfully engaging in conduct directed at a first responder that intentionally causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.
  16. Violating § 843.31 after receiving a verbal warning is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable by up to 60 days imprisonment and a $500 fine under §§ 775.082-775.083.
  17. The Halo Law (§ 843.31) is relevant to recording in a narrow practical sense: a person recording police or first responders at the scene of an incident may be ordered to step back to 25 feet. The law does NOT amend § 934.03 or the all-party consent requirement; audio/video recording in compliance with the 25-foot rule remains lawful under § 934.03.
  18. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the FCC's One-to-One TCPA Consent Rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025). The court held the rule exceeded the FCC's statutory authority under the TCPA because it 'impermissibly conflict[ed] with the ordinary statutory meaning of prior express consent.' The mandate issued April 30, 2025. Because Florida is within the Eleventh Circuit, this vacatur is direct binding precedent in Florida. The one-to-one and
  19. 47 CFR § 64.501 (recording of telephone conversations with telephone companies) was removed effective November 20, 2017, and Part 64 Subpart E is now reserved. The federal baseline for recording calls is 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which permits one-party consent; Florida's § 934.03 imposes the stricter all-party rule.(ecfr.gov).gov
  20. HHS OCR guidance requires covered health care providers and health plans to apply the HIPAA Privacy Rule's reasonable safeguards when using remote communication technologies for audio-only telehealth. Any audio recording of a patient communication that captures protected health information (PHI) is subject to 45 CFR § 164.508 authorization requirements and the security safeguards of 45 CFR Part 164, Subpart C. Florida healthcare providers must comply with both HIPAA's federal consent requirement
  21. Under FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), audio or video recordings that are directly related to a student and maintained by an educational institution are education records. The U.S. Department of Education's Student Privacy Policy Office guidance confirms that audio recordings of faculty meetings discussing student grades, or recordings used for disciplinary purposes, qualify as education records. Disclosing such recordings without written parental or eligible-student consent violates F
  22. CFPB Regulation F (12 CFR Part 1006) requires that if a debt collector records telephone calls made in connection with debt collection, the recording must be retained for three years after the date of the call (12 CFR § 1006.100(b)). Debt collectors are not required to record calls, but if they do, the recording is evidence of compliance or noncompliance with the FDCPA. Florida debt collectors operating under § 934.03 must still obtain all-party consent before recording; Regulation F imposes add
  23. NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025) directing regional offices to treat the surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions as a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). The memo states that 'the use of surreptitious recordings during the collective-bargaining process is inconsistent with the openness and mutual trust necessary for the process to function as contemplated by the Act.' In Florid
  24. In W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-1068-JSS-RMN, 2025 WL 722892 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2025), a federal court denied dismissal of a claim under the Florida Security of Communications Act (Fla. Stat. § 934.03). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant hospital's website used Meta and Google tracking pixels that intercepted private health information and transmitted it to advertisers without patient consent.
  25. The Orlando Health court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged an FSCA claim and denied the motion to dismiss except as to Count IV, which it dismissed without prejudice. It found persuasive a Northern District of Florida decision in a similar hospital-pixel case, which had said that resolving such claims 'involves answering highly technical questions' it declined to decide on a motion to dismiss.(courtlistener.com)
  26. FSCA claims over website tracking technology continue to be filed in Florida courts. Under § 934.10(1)(b), a successful plaintiff recovers actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher.(flsenate.gov).gov
  27. Florida Attorney General informal opinion (April 7, 2004; AG Joslyn Wilson to Ocala City Attorney Patrick W. Gilligan) analyzed Fla. Stat. § 934.03 in the context of audio recording in municipal offices. The opinion concluded that 'this office cannot conclude that the audio recording of conversations occurring in municipal offices would generally be permissible' under § 934.03, because citizens in city offices may retain a reasonable expectation of privacy for oral communications. The AG advised
  28. leg.state.fl.us.gov
  29. flsenate.gov.gov
  30. flsenate.gov.gov
  31. leg.state.fl.us.gov
  32. ca11.uscourts.gov.gov
  33. hhs.gov.gov
  34. studentprivacy.ed.gov.gov
  35. consumerfinance.gov.gov
  36. nlrb.gov.gov
  37. law.cornell.edu
  38. flsenate.gov.gov
  39. leg.state.fl.us.gov
  40. flsenate.gov.gov
  41. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(l)1 makes it lawful for a parent or legal guardian of a child under 18 to intercept and record an oral communication the child is a party to, where the parent or guardian has reasonable grounds to believe the recording will capture a statement by another party that the other party intends to commit, is committing, or has committed an unlawful sexual act or an unlawful act of physical force or violence against the child; § 934.03(2)(l)2 requires that such a recording be provided to a law enforcement agency and provides it 'may not be otherwise disseminated or shared.'(leg.state.fl.us)
  42. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(m) makes it lawful for a person protected under an active temporary or final injunction for repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence under s. 784.046, stalking under s. 784.0485, or domestic violence under s. 741.30, or any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the person, to intercept and record a wire, oral, or electronic communication received in violation of that injunction or order. The recording may be provided to a law enforcement agency, an attorney, or a court to evidence the violation where the subject has been served or is on notice, and 'may not be otherwise disseminated or shared.'(flsenate.gov)
Share: