Blog

What Constitutes Stalking, Harassment and Emotional Distress Necessary to Obtain an Injunction in the Orlando, Florida Area? 

Florida Statute 784.0485(1) (2021) creates a cause of action for injunction for protection against stalking. A person commits stalking when they willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow, harass, or cyber stalk another person. To harass means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose. Course of conduct, in turn, means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. By its statutory definition, stalking requires proof of repeated acts. It takes two incidents of harassment to satisfy the requirements for an injunction against stalking. 

Substantial Emotional Distress

A finding of harassment requires a showing of substantial emotional distress. Whether a communication causes substantial emotional distress should be narrowly construed and is governed by the reasonable person standard. Substantial emotional distress is greater than just an ordinary feeling of distress. Unpleasant, uncivil, and distasteful communications do not rise to the level required to support a permanent injunction against stalking. Likewise, mere irritation, annoyance, embarrassment, exasperation, aggravation, and frustration, without more, does not equate to substantial emotional distress. 

What Does Not Count

While profanity and accusations of lying might be offensive or even defamatory, this speech does not fall within a course of conduct that allows injunctive relief. Similarity, testimony that a petitioner was scared of the respondent’s erratic behavior was held to be insufficient to establish substantial emotional distress. In short, injunctions are not available to stop someone from uttering insults or falsehoods. 

What is Considered Sufficient

By contrast, where the complained-of conduct is more extreme and outrageous, courts have found the conduct to be sufficient to cause emotional distress in a reasonable person. An example of this is where an ex-husband went to his ex-wife’s home in the middle of the night and looked inside her darkened windows with a flashlight for three consecutive nights. In this case, the ex-husband’s actions were sufficient to cause substantial emotional distress in a reasonable person. 

Another required element of harassment is that the course of conduct serves no legitimate purpose. Whether a communication serves a legitimate purpose is broadly construed and will cover a wide variety of conduct. Whether the purpose for conduct is legitimate is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, courts have generally held that contact is legitimate when there is a reason for the contact other than to harass the victim. 

Respondent’s practice of driving by petitioner’s residence multiple times a day, including on one instance in which respondent leaned out of car with object in his hand and made verbal threat, along with respondent’s operation of drone over petitioner’s residence on at least three occasions, supported issuance of an injunction.   

If you have more questions regarding a Marital and Family Law matter, you may call Ann Marie Giordano Gilden at Ann Marie Giordano Gilden, P.A. at 407-732-7620 and set an initial consultation. 

This article is for informational purposes only and does not form an attorney client privilege.