Spyware as Wiretapping

I saw on How Appealing that a Florida case has addressed the issue of wiretapping via spyware in the context of a divorce case. The scenario: Wife suspects or knows husband is having an affair. She installs spyware on his computer to log his IMing and chat. She obtains evidence of the affair, which husband seeks to preclude her from using in the divorce case. The Court rules the evidence inadmissible because installing the spyware violated a Florida criminal anti-wiretap law which made it a criminal act for a 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. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;

(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or (e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation; shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).

§ 934.03(1)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (2003).

Based on the violation, the Court disallowed the evidence. From the case it appears it was not a joint computer, which might conceivably change the analysis, though I'm not certain it would given the wording of the statute. It appears the wife is going to have to do things the old-fashioned way by hiring a private detective. No-fault, anyone?