When is a 911 Call Admissible in Florida Court?

August 28, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, a call to 911 can be used in court if it meets specific criteria. While the audio of a 911 call is not always admissible at a criminal proceeding, certain characteristics may allow it to be introduced into evidence. Depending on the content of a 911 call, whether or not it is played can impact the outcome of a trial.

A 911 call is generally admissible if it complies with Florida’s hearsay exceptions and its probative value (evidence value) is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice against the defendant. This blog will discuss the admissibility of 911 calls in Florida’s criminal courts.

A 911 call is admissible in Florida at trial if it satisfies three conditions. First, the call must consist of nontestimonial hearsay (if the call is being introduced without the testimony of the 911 caller). Second, it must comply with Fla. Stat. 90.403, which excludes evidence from admission if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, or is needlessly duplicative. Third, it must satisfy a hearsay exception.

The testimonial/nontestimonial hearsay barrier is generally the first to clear when it comes to admitting 911 calls. Testimonial hearsay is defined as a hearsay made primarily for the purpose of assisting a police investigation or future prosecution. Nontestimonial hearsay is a hearsay statement made for the primary purpose of responding to an ongoing emergency. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 

Note: Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Crawford ruling, testimonial hearsay statements are considered inadmissible in court unless:

• The declarant (speaker/writer) testifies, usually at trial (or in a FRCP 3.190(j) pretrial deposition to perpetuate testimony)
• The defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant 

Examples of 911 calls that may be considered testimonial hearsay, requiring the person who made the call to be cross-examined before the call can be used in court may include:

• A woman calls 911 and says that her boyfriend abused her earlier that day – she tells the operator she is safe now but wants to press charges
• A man calls 911 and said he saw a robbery happened the evening before, then offers to describe the suspect
• A man calls 911 to report that he saw who perpetrated a shooting earlier that week

All of these 911 calls are testimonial hearsay, as the call is not being made amid an ongoing emergency. In each of these cases, the actual event has concluded and 911 is being contacted after the fact. Under Crawford, these 911 calls are inadmissible without the caller’s testimony and the opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine them (a 3.220 discovery deposition does not satisfy confrontation).

Examples of 911 calls that are nontestimonial in nature (admissible as hearsay if they satisfy an exception because they are made in response to an ongoing emergency) include:

• “There’s a man in my house with a knife, send help now!”
• “My boyfriend just hit me and I think he’s about to do it again”
• “Someone is breaking into my car outside, I just heard the window shatter”

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), a 911 call made for the primary purpose of responding to an ongoing emergency (like the above examples) can be introduced into evidence even if the defendant has not had the chance to cross-examine the caller.

Note: Florida’s two-party consent recording law does not apply to 911 calls (Fla. Stat. 934.03). If a defendant’s call to 911 is recorded and the State seeks to introduce it in court, asserting that the defendant did not consent to the call being recorded will not prevent its use at trial if the call is otherwise admissible.

If a 911 call is found to be nontestimonial in nature (or testimonial in nature with the caller willing to testify/be cross-examined), this does not automatically mean the call can be played. The next determination is whether the content of the 911 call qualifies as admissible under Fla. Stat. Section 90.403. 

Fla. Stat. Section 90.403 prohibits otherwise relevant evidence from being used in criminal proceedings if its probative (evidentiary) value is substantially outweighed by the danger of any of the following:

• Danger of unfair prejudice against the defendant
• Confusion of issues
• Misleading the jury
• Needless presentation of cumulative evidence

Examples of when a 911 call may not be inadmissible on 90.403 grounds include the following:

• A witness calmly tells 911 about the exact same events already testified to at the trial by four other witnesses (needlessly cumulative)
• A child witness finds the dead body of a family member and describes its condition to a 911 operator in graphic detail (could be excessively emotionally prejudicial especially if the time/cause of death are not disputed)
• A 911 caller tells the operator: “I think he probably killed his wife. I haven’t seen her in a while” (could be excluded on grounds that it provides little to no evidentiary value and may erroneously lead the jury into a conviction)

If a 911 call is found to be admissible under 90.403 and is nontestimonial in nature (or testimonial with the caller willing to testify/be cross-examined), the final determination is whether the 911 call complies with a designated hearsay exception in Florida. 

Examples of designated Florida hearsay exceptions under Fla. Stat. Section 90.803 (hearsay exceptions for witnesses regardless of availability) and F.S. 90.804 (hearsay exceptions for unavailable witnesses) include:

• Present Sense Impression: A statement describing/explaining an event made while perceiving it or immediately after.
• Excited Utterance: A statement relating to a startling event made while under stress or excitement from the event.
• Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition: Current state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition of the declarant (e.g., intent, pain).
• Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment: Statement made for diagnosis and/or treatment describing medical history, symptoms, or cause.
• Recorded Recollection: A record made or adopted by the witness when memory was fresh, now insufficiently remembered.
• Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity: Business records made near the time by someone with knowledge, as part of a routine practice.
• Child Hearsay: Out-of-court statements of a child with a physical or developmental age 17 or younger describing sexual abuse or physical abuse, admissible if trustworthy and child is either available for cross or unavailable with corroboration.
• Statement Under Belief of Imminent Death: Statement made while believing death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. (Death must be so close that the declarant proverbially heard “the beating wings of the angel of death.” People v. Sarzano, 212 N.Y. 231 (1914))

In Florida, 911 calls are most often admitted under the spontaneous statement (90.803(1)) or excited utterance (90.803(2)) exceptions.

A 911 call is admissible as a spontaneous statement if it:

• Relates to a startling event or condition
• Was made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter (contemporaneity)
• Except when the statement indicates lack of trustworthiness (Thompson v. State, 247 So.3d 706 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2018))

Similarly, 911 calls are admissible as an excited utterance (90.803(2)) if the following are true:

• The event must be startling enough to cause nervous excitement
• The statement must be made before there was time to misrepresent or contrive
• The declarant must still be under the stress of excitement from the event (Roop v. State, 228 So.3d 633 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2017))

Florida’s courts have consistently analyzed the admissibility of 911 calls using these two exceptions. In deciding whether a call qualifies, courts generally consider the following:

• Timing and emotional state of the call/caller: Whether the call was made immediately or shortly after the event and whether the caller was still under the stress of the event (per Thompson)
• Trustworthiness and lack of reflection: No time to contrive or misrepresent (Beckman v. State, 230 So.3d 77 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2017))
• Content of the call: Whether or not the call described or related to the actual event (see Petit v. State, 92 So.3d 906 (2012), admitting a call made during a domestic violence incident describing the events)
• Ongoing event: Under Thompson, courts are more likely to admit the call (especially as nontestimonial hearsay)

A key question sometimes arises – if a prosecutor wants to use a defendant’s 911 call in court, is this legal given the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination? The answer is yes, if the defendant voluntarily contacted and made statements to 911. 

If a defendant at trial makes admissions to 911, this is admissible under Fla. Stat. 90.803(18) (admissions by a party-opponent). A defendant’s 911 call may be admitted regardless of if they testify if it satisfies a hearsay exception and 90.403. Someone on trial cannot invoke Crawford to claim that because they refuse to testify (as is their right), their 911 call is inadmissible.

In sum, 911 calls may or may not be admissible in Florida’s courts. A 911 call recording is categorically inadmissible if, applying 90.403, a court finds that the probative value of the call’s use would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needlessly present cumulative evidence.

If a call is admissible under 90.403, it must also meet a designated hearsay exception (usually spontaneous statement or excited utterance) to qualify for use in court. Once this criteria is satisfied, the call may be used without the in-court testimony of the declarant (caller) under Davis.

However, if the 911 call is made primarily for the purpose of facilitating a police investigation and/or prosecution, after the ongoing emergency has ended, the 911 caller must testify and be cross-examined before the call can be admitted. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving potential admission of hearsay, including 911 calls, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share