North FL’s Highest Court Finds No Harassment In Major Stalking Injunction Case

September 11, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a stalking injunction could not be issued after a couple produced insufficient evidence as a matter of law that they were stalked.

CASE: Heule v. Humphrey, 426 So.3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)

Charge(s): Stalking Injunction

Outcome: Injunction TOSSED OUT, as there was insufficient evidence that the respondent was engaged in activity that was likely to cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioners.

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: An 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. Ford v. State, 387 So.3d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) 

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
• 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)

There are various types of stalking injunctions that may be issued, 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

Important: Even if the temporary injunction petition is denied, this does not mean the process is over. A petition will still be set for a full hearing (Florida Statutes Section 784.0485(5)) even if a judge does not grant a temporary injunction. Johnstone v. State, 298 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)

Before a permanent injunction can be granted, a final hearing must occur. At that hearing, parties have the opportunity to testify, present witnesses, and challenge (or introduce) evidence. A judge will then decide whether or not the injunction is issued.

It is notable that in a civil injunction case, the burden of proof isn’t the same as it is in a criminal proceeding. The difference is as follows:

• In an injunction proceeding, a petitioner must prove by a PREPONDERANCE (majority) of the evidence that the respondent(s) engaged in behavior that constitutes stalking and/or aggravated stalking, domestic violence, or dating violence
• In a CRIMINAL case (charging stalking, aggravated stalking, or a violation of an existing injunction), the State must prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that a defendant has committed each and every element of the offense charged (Jones v. Jackson, 67 So.3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011))

It is also important to understand that the issuance of a final injunction does NOT mean that the final injunction will last forever. Though it will not expire after a set amount of time, dissolution of a final injunction may occur if any of the following are true:

• The petitioner (moving party) advises the court that they don’t wish to keep an injunction place any longer
• The respondent (party against whom the injunction was issued) establishes at a hearing that the injunction no longer has a legally valid basis (e.g. that the conditions leading to its issuance are no longer relevant/applicable, per Hobbs v. Hobbs, 290 So.3d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020))
• A reviewing court (e.g. a Florida appellate court) determines that a trial judge erred as a matter of law by issuing the injunction due to failure by a petitioner to sufficiently allege stalking

In any stalking or aggravated stalking case (regardless of whether an injunction or a CRIMINAL conviction is sought), it must be established that the defendant/respondent’s conduct was likely to cause substantial emotional distress to an objectively reasonable person.

Substantial emotional distress is distinguishable from ordinary emotional distress, and frequently includes symptoms such as physical sickness or serious difficulty sleeping (insomnia). Touhey v. Seda, 133 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)

However, a person experiencing intense emotional distress DOES NOT end the analysis. Their distress has to be objectively reasonable – subjective feelings are insufficient. Garcia v. Soto, 337 So.3d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)

Though an appellate court will typically defer to a lower court in such cases, as the judge was in the best position to evaluate the evidence and testimony, sometimes a lower court judge will err as a matter of law in issuing an injunction – even when one or more of the elements have NOT been satisfied.

This was made clear in a major decision recently handed down by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court). There, a couple became angry at a neighbor after the neighbor’s vehicle accidentally rolled down a hill and crashed into their dining room – resulting in damage.

In the weeks and months after the incident occurred, the respondents (a married couple) placed various signs in their windows targeted at the neighbor. Many of them dubbed her mentally ill. The couple also hung a skeleton on their door, which they dressed in various items including a straitjacket. 

The neighbor (petitioner) grew disturbed by the couple’s conduct and filed for an injunction in an effort to get them to stop their behavior. At the hearing, the petitioner advised that she’d suffered emotional distress from the respondents’ conduct – and urged the judge to issue a final injunction prohibiting the respondents’ “stalking.” Ultimately, he did so.

The respondents APPEALED the ruling, arguing that there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law that their actions qualified as stalking. The respondents asserted that even if their conduct may have frustrated the petitioner, it was NOT likely to cause substantial emotional distress in an objectively reasonable person.

The 1st DCA AGREED with the respondents and TOSSED OUT the injunction. Let’s look at the case – Heule v. Humphrey, 426 So.3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) – and see what it means for those petitioning for (or responding to petitions for) injunctions in Florida.

KEY CASE: Heule v. Humphrey, 426 So.3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)

In Heule v. Humphrey, 426 So.3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025), the petitioner (Humphrey) sought an injunction after alleging she’d been “stalked” by her neighbors, the Heules. At the final hearing, the following was revealed:

• Humphrey’s car accidentally rolled down a hill and crashed into the Heules’ dining room
• This infuriated the Heules, who blamed Humphrey
• Over the following months, the Heules stuck various signs in their window designed to annoy the petitioner
• These included signs reading “HERE COMES DA JUDGE” when Humphrey was going through a divorce proceeding, multiple signs referencing perimenopause (due to her age), signs declaring Heule to be mentally ill via references to movies such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and dressing up a skeleton on their door in a straitjacket
• Humphrey finally sought a STALKING INJUNCTION against the Heules in an effort to get them to stop their behavior
• The trial court denied her two original petitions
• However, in her third petition and at the final injunction hearing, Humphrey alleged she’d experienced substantial emotional distress
• The trial judge found her claim to be legally sufficient and GRANTED the injunction
• However, the judge only found “emotional distress” had been experienced and did NOT say this was substantial in nature

The Heules appealed the ruling – arguing that a mere allegation of substantial emotional distress was legally insufficient, and claiming that their conduct would NOT cause substantial emotional distress in an objectively reasonable person. 

The Heules urged the 1st DCA to SET ASIDE the injunction on the basis that the judge applied a “subjective” (e.g. the petitioner personally being distressed emotionally) rather than an objective standard regarding the petitioner’s emotional distress. 

The Heules also noted that the trial judge found only emotional distress had been experienced – not substantial emotional distress, which meant the statutory requirements for an injunction to be issued had not been satisfied. The 1st DCA AGREED, writing: 

“In granting Appellee’s petitions and entering the injunctions, the trial court found that Appellee and her daughter had experienced “emotional distress.” … The petitioner must prove stalking by competent, substantial evidence. Id. at 1146. As we have explained, a trial court has broad discretion to grant an injunction. Id. at 1143–44. As such, an appellate court reviews an order granting a permanent injunction “for a clear abuse of that discretion.” Id. at 1144; see also Stone v. McMillian, 270 So. 3d 510, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (noting that a trial court’s imposition of a stalking injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and must be supported by competent, substantial evidence). However, the question of whether evidence is legally sufficient to justify the imposition of an injunction is a question of law that is reviewable de novo. Pickett, 236 So. 3d at 1146.”

“Here, the trial court entered the stalking injunctions based upon what it found to be Appellants’ harassment of Appellee by posting signs in their windows and hanging a skeleton on their front door that they would dress and decorate in various ways to correspond to events in Appellee’s life. But this case lacks evidence of Appellee suffering “substantial emotional distress” due to the signs and ornaments hanging in Appellants’ house that justifies the imposition of a stalking injunction. See Savage v. Bustillo, 397 So. 3d 1198, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (recognizing that substantial emotional distress is more than being weirded out or uncomfortable); Venn v. Fowlkes, 257 So. 3d 622, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (recognizing that the substantial emotional distress that is necessary to support a stalking injunction is greater than just an ordinary feeling of distress). Accordingly, we reverse.”

Put simply, the 1st DCA found that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the injunction’s issuance. 

In sum, Heule v. Humphrey, 426 So.3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding stalking injunctions. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) held that:

• There was insufficient evidence that the petitioner suffered substantial emotional distress as a result of the respondents’ conduct
• There was also insufficient evidence that an objectively reasonable person would suffer substantial emotional distress due to their conduct
• Because the mere finding of subjective “emotional distress” could not legally sustain the issuance of the injunction, the injunction was SET ASIDE

Florida’s legal community should take note of Heule v. Humphrey, 426 So.3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025), as it makes clear when a petitioner has (and hasn’t) produced enough evidence as a matter of law of substantial emotional distress in a stalking proceeding.

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 depending on the nature of the abuse, whether they are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life.

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