Major FL Court: Repeat Violence Injunction TOSSED OUT – Here’s Why

October 6, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal found the respondent only committed one act of violence under state law against the petitioner, requiring that an injunction for repeat violence to be set aside.

CASE: Long v. Edmundson, 827 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)

Charge(s): Repeat Violence Injunction

Outcome: Injunction SET ASIDE, as there was only evidence that the respondent committed a single act of violence against the petitioner – thus, there was no “repeat violence.”

Stalking and Aggravated Stalking in Florida

Stalking and aggravated stalking are serious offenses in Florida that can carry significant legal and financial penalties. Stalking occurs when a person willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person. Florida Statutes Section 784.048(2) regulates the offense of stalking.

If someone has been accused of stalking by harassing the victim, the State must establish that the defendant engaged in a course of conduct directed at the victim that:

• Served no legitimate purpose
• Would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person
• Did cause substantial emotional distress to the victim

If charged criminally, stalking is a first-degree misdemeanor – punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Cyberstalking carries the same criminal penalties as stalking, and occurs when someone does either of the following:

• Engages in a course of conduct to communicate words, images, or language through electronic methods, either directly or indirectly, which is directed at or pertaining to a targeted person; or
• Accesses, or attempts to access, the online account or internet-connected home electronic system without the specified person’s consent and that causes substantial emotional distress to the victim 

Stalking is an enhanceable offense, meaning certain forms of stalking are felonies and carry heavier criminal penalties under Florida law. For example:

• Someone who makes a credible threat to the victim in the course of stalking commits a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine
• Someone who stalks a victim 16 years old or younger commits a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine
• Someone who violates an existing injunction against stalking commits aggravated stalking, a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine

Note: A police officer may make a warrantless arrest of anyone they suspect of stalking based on probable cause.

Under Florida law, stalking must be done both willfully and maliciously. “Willfully” is defined as knowingly, intentionally, and purposely. “Maliciously” is defined as wrongfully, intentionally, and without lawful justification or excuse. Seese v. State, 955 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) 

In addition to stalking, there is aggravated stalking. Aggravated stalking includes the elements of stalking, but with the added requirement of making a credible threat to the victim, or violating an injunction for protection against violence. 

Aggravated stalking is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Moreover, under Florida Statutes Section 784.048, a court may issue an order restraining the defendant in an aggravated stalking case from contacting the victim for up to 10 years.

In addition to a criminal charge, someone may be subject to a stalking INJUNCTION. In Florida, an injunction is defined as a court order that is meant to compel a person to engage in, or refrain from engaging in, a particular course of conduct. 

There are two broad types of stalking injunctions – temporary injunctions and permanent (final) injunctions. A temporary injunction (also known as an ex parte injunction) can be entered before the respondent (e.g. the party accused of stalking) gets a full hearing. The process proceeds in the following way:

• The petitioner files a verified petition alleging stalking
• The judge reviews the petition – generally, the respondent does not have to be present
• If it appears that stalking exists, the court may issue a temporary injunction pending a full hearing
• Temporary injunctions ordinarily last no more than 15 days
• A full hearing must be scheduled no later than the date of expiration of the temporary injunction
• However, the hearing on the final injunction may be continued (e.g. delayed) for GOOD CAUSE, such as inability to obtain service on the respondent (and a temporary injunction may be extended accordingly)

In the event that a final injunction hearing is held, the petitioner and respondent will both have the chance to do the following:

• Testify regarding the occurrence/nonoccurrence of the alleged events
• Present evidence in the form of exhibits
• Call witnesses to dispute or corroborate their claims/the claims of the opposing party

It is important to note that the burden of proof at an injunction hearing differs from the burden of proof at a criminal trial. The distinction is as follows:

• In a civil injunction proceeding, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance (e.g. the majority) of the evidence that a respondent committed an offense (such as stalking and/or domestic/repeat/dating violence) constituting a violation of state law
• At a criminal trial, the State must prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant committed each and every element of the charged offense(s)(Shannon v. Smith, 278 So.3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019))

There are various types of injunctions that may be issued in Florida – depending on the facts of the case. These include:

• Injunction for protection for domestic violence – Under Fla. Stat. 741.30, this may issue if the petitioner and respondent presently reside together, have lived together in the past in an intimate or family relationship, are related by blood/marriage OR share a child
• Injunction for protection from repeat violence – May be issued when a party proves that at least 2 instances of stalking and/or violence have been committed against them by the respondent in the last 6 months and the petitioner/respondent do not have a relationship qualifying them for a domestic violence injunction
• Injunction for protection from dating violence – requires that 1) the dating relationship existed within the last 6 months; 2) the nature of the relationship is characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement between the parties; and 3) the frequency and type of interaction is based on the party’s involvement over time and on a continuous basis during the course of the relationship
• Injunction for sexual violence – requires a victim or parent of a victim to establish that 1) the petitioner has reported the alleged sexual violence to a law enforcement agency and is cooperating in any criminal proceeding against the respondent; and 2) the respondent who committed sexual violence was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in state prison, and the term of imprisonment has expired or is due to expire within 90 days following the date the petition is filed

Critically, the fact that an injunction is issued DOES NOT automatically mean that the injunction will last forever (even if it is permanent). A final injunction can be set aside after its issuance if any of the following three things happen:

• The petitioner, of their OWN FREE WILL, moves the court to dissolve the injunction on the basis that they no longer fear the petitioner 
• The respondent moves to set aside the injunction on the basis that circumstances since its issuance have changed so dramatically, the injunction is no longer relevant or supportable legally (Hobbs v. Hobbs, 290 So.3d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020))
• A reviewing court (such as a Florida District Court of Appeal) concludes the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the issuance of the injunction

Importantly, there are a few legal issues that are typically in dispute at an injunction hearing. The following are the key questions that must be answered by the judge:

• Whether the respondent engaged in multiple courses of conduct, or whether their alleged misbehavior was confined to a single incident
• Whether the respondent had a LEGITIMATE purpose for their behavior (e.g. other than the harassment of the petitioner)
• Whether the respondent’s behavior was willful and malicious
• Whether the respondent’s conduct was likely to cause an objectively reasonable person in the petitioner’s shoes SUBSTANTIAL emotional distress

Important: “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. “Maliciously” means wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse, and with knowledge that injury or damage will or may be caused to another person or property. Quinn v. State, 288 So. 3d 657, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)

In a case involving a repeat violence injunction being sought, the petitioner must show that they were the victim of at least two incidents of violence at the hands of the respondent (e.g. violence that is repeated in nature), or one incident of stalking – which necessarily requires multiple acts of harassment. Lukacs v. Luton, 982 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)

This was made clear in one major case heard by Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal (Greater Tampa’s highest court). There, a petitioner alleged that a respondent engaged in violence against her – and accordingly, sought an injunction against repeat violence. She accused the respondent of the following:

• First, leaving a voicemail threatening to “take care of” the petitioner and her dog if they did not move out (due to the presence of a dog allegedly violating a rental agreement)
• Next, brandishing a firearm while she was outside with a dog, then charging after her and pushing her down to the floor

Due to the seemingly extreme nature of the respondent’s conduct, the judge issued a permanent repeat violence injunction against the respondent. On appeal, however, the respondent claimed that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support this – because, at the very most, he committed just ONE act of “violence” against the petitioner.

The 2nd DCA AGREED with the respondent and REVERSED the trial judge’s decision, setting aside the injunction. Let’s take a deeper look at this case – Long v. Edmundson, 827 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) – and discuss what it means for those in Florida involved in stalking and/or repeat violence injunction proceedings.

KEY CASE: Long v. Edmundson, 827 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)

In Long v. Edmundson, 827 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the petitioner (Edmundson) alleged that she was the victim of repeat violence at the hands of Long, and urged the trial judge to issue an injunction for repeat violence. He did so after the testimony at the hearing revealed that:

• Long and Edmundson were in a dispute over whether Edmundson could permissibly live with her dog on the property
• Long claimed this was a violation of her rental agreement
• Long called Edmundson and left a hostile voicemail threatening to “take care” of her and her dog if they did not move out
• Later, Edmundson was outside walking her dog when she came across Long, who had his firearm at the time
• Her dog initially approached Long in a “friendly” manner – but then Long began to chase after them
• Ultimately, Long allegedly pushed Edmundson and she fell in her doorway
• She then sought a repeat violence injunction, which was granted

On appeal to the 2nd DCA, Long challenged the issuance of the injunction on the grounds that even if Edmundson’s allegations were true, he did not commit TWO OR MORE acts of violence – which is legally required for an injunction against repeat violence to be obtained.

The 2nd DCA AGREED with Long – and set aside the injunction. Finding that Edmundson was not entitled to an injunction against repeat violence, the 2nd DCA held:

“Ms. Edmundson’s petition asserted that two incidents qualified for entry of the repeat violence injunction. First, on June 20, 2000, Mr. Long allegedly called and left a message on the answering machine stating, “You are in violation of the rental agreement because of your dog. If you are not out by June 30th, I will take care of you and your dog.” The second event took place on June 23, 2000, when Ms. Edmundson saw Mr. Long walking around the corner of her duplex. “He was tossing a gun back and forth in his hands.” Her 90–pound dog approached Mr. Long “in a friendly way.” Lastly, the petition asserted that Mr. Long threatened to shoot her dog and then “walked towards me pointing the gun” and “waving it around at me. He then pushed me through the back door pushing me down.” 

“At the hearing Ms. Edmundson testified that the incident involving the answering machine did not cause her any fear. In fact, believing the taped message was unimportant, she did not bring it to the hearing. As in Johnson v. Brooks, 567 So.2d 34, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), a repeat violence case that also involved threatening phone calls, there was no proof of an assault because “the record fails to show that appellant did any act which created a well-founded fear in appellee that violence was imminent …. [T]here must be some overt act sufficient to demonstrate a threat directed at the person placed in fear.” Although the incident at the duplex in which Mr. Long waved a gun around and pushed Ms. Edmundson is sufficient to constitute an act of violence, it is the only qualifying act of violence either alleged in the petition or proved at the hearing. Thus, there was a total failure of proof that this was a repeat violence situation. See Anderson v. McGuffey, 746 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Russell, 738 So.2d at 1003). Because the trial court erred in entering the injunction, we reverse.”

Put simply, a “total failure of proof” that Long committed “repeat violence” against Edmundson required the injunction to be set aside.

In sum, Long v. Edmundson, 827 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) marks a major development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding stalking and repeat violence injunctions. The 2nd DCA (Greater Tampa’s highest court) held that:

• Edmundson admitted she was not scared by Long’s voicemail
• The only act of violence Long allegedly committed involved him pursuing Edmundson and pushing her down
• This was only a SINGLE INSTANT of violence, not repeat violence – which was needed for a repeat violence injunction to issue
• As a result, the trial judge’s decision to issue the injunction was REVERSED

Florida’s legal community should take note of Long v. Edmundson, 827 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), as it makes clear that without proof of multiple violent acts, a repeat violence injunction will not be issued as a matter of law.

If someone is charged with stalking or aggravated stalking, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term, hefty fines, and more.

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 criminal 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