North FL’s Highest Court REVERSES Stalking Injunction Against Ex-Wife: “Legitimate Purpose” For Communications

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

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal REVERSED an injunction a husband successfully obtained against his ex-wife for stalking after finding her communications had a legitimate purpose (were not solely to harass the ex-husband). However, one 1st DCA judge dissented.

CASE: Hart v. Griffis, 288 So.3d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)

Charge(s): Stalking Injunction

Outcome: Injunction SET ASIDE, as the respondent’s communications with the petitioner had a “legitimate purpose” (e.g. were not exclusively designed to harass him). However, one 1st DCA judge didn’t agree. 

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. 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 Fla. Stat. 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)

A FINAL (or permanent injunction) must only issue after the respondent is given notice – and an evidentiary hearing occurs. At that hearing, both parties have the opportunity to:

• Testify regarding the facts of the case
• Present witnesses and evidence
• Contest whether the statutory requirements for stalking have been established

It is important to note that the entry of a final injunction does NOT mean that the injunction will automatically last forever. An injunction may ultimately be set aside if:

• The petitioner (party seeking the injunction) decides they no longer want the injunction to be in place, or 
• A reviewing court finds the injunction was improperly issued, as there was a LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT basis for it (Garcia v. Soto, 337 So.3d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022))

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

Critically, a petitioner seeking an injunction in civil proceedings has a LOWER burden of proof than the State has in a criminal prosecution of a defendant for stalking and/or alleged violation of an injunction. Under Florida law:

• For a stalking injunction to issue (or injunction against repeat/dating/domestic violence), the petitioner must establish by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that the legal requirements for the issuance of an injunction have been satisfied (harassment, more than one time, objectively reasonable substantial emotional distress, no legitimate purpose)
• For someone to be CRIMINALLY CONVICTED of stalking or an injunction violation, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant violated the applicable statute (Jones v. Jackson, 67 So.3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011))

For a petitioner to successfully seek a stalking injunction, it must be established that the alleged communications of a respondent had NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE (e.g. purpose aside from the harassment/threatening of the petitioner). 

This is a key aspect of state stalking law. In certain Florida cases, many have been surprised by appellate courts setting aside injunctions that appeared to be validly entered due to unreasonable behavior by the respondent likely to cause substantial emotional distress to a petitioner.

But upon closer inspection, the reversal of such an injunction may not be as surprising as initially believed. So long as the respondent’s communications had a LEGITIMATE PURPOSE (e.g. the conduct was not exclusively intended to harass/threaten a petitioner), even seemingly outrageous text messages or phone calls do not constitute stalking.

This was made clear in one case decided by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court). There, a husband and wife had recently been involved in VERY acrimonious divorce proceedings. 

The husband ultimately sought an injunction against his ex-wife for a variety of “objectionable” behaviors, including:

• Alleged domestic violence and threats that had occurred approximately 4 years prior to the injunction proceedings (during the course of their marriage), and
• Contacting the State Attorney’s Office to investigate her husband – who was a SITTING JUDGE at the time – over allegations that he had unlawfully enrolled their children at an unapproved school in violation of a court order

The lower court judge GRANTED the injunction, concluding that the ex-wife’s conduct did not have a legitimate purpose and caused substantial emotional distress to her ex-husband (who said he could not sleep due to her attempts to get him investigated). The lower court judge also found that the petitioner (husband) proved “stalking” behavior had occurred during the marriage itself.

The ex-wife APPEALED the ruling to the 1st DCA, arguing the following:

• The alleged “stalking” (e.g. threats/domestic violence) that occurred 4 years prior was too remote in time as a matter of law to serve as the basis for a present-day injunction – and;
• The ex-wife’s contacting of the State Attorney’s Office was for the legitimate purpose of investigating whether her ex-husband violated a court order, even if her allegations were ultimately proven to be false (which they were)

The 1st DCA AGREED with the ex-wife (respondent) and SET ASIDE the injunction. However, one 1st DCA judge dissented.

Let’s look at the case – Hart v. Griffis, 288 So.3d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) – and discuss what it means for those in Florida who are accusing others of stalking, or have been accused of stalking themselves.

KEY CASE: Hart v. Griffis, 288 So.3d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)

In Hart v. Griffis, 288 So.3d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), the petitioner (Griffis) alleged his ex-wife engaged in multiple courses of conduct that could serve as the basis for a stalking injunction. At the final injunction hearing, the following was revealed:

• Griffis alleged that Hart assaulted him on multiple occasions and verbally abused him 4 years prior to the start of the proceedings
• Griffis also alleged Hart contacted the State Attorney’s Office to urge an investigation into him after she accused him of sending their children to a school that they were not permitted to attend under the final order in their divorce proceedings (in another county)
• The allegations were ultimately shown to be untrue
• Griffis testified that he experienced substantial emotional distress as a result of Hart’s behavior
• The lower court judge ultimately entered a stalking injunction, citing Hart’s actions prior to the divorce and after the divorce

Hart APPEALED the judge’s ruling, arguing that the alleged “stalking” that occurred during the marriage occurred too long before the proceedings for an injunction to issue, and that contacting the SAO had a “legitimate purpose” (as she believed her husband was violating a court order).

The 1st DCA sided with Hart on both points and TOSSED OUT the final injunction. Concluding first that 4-year-old conduct could not serve as the basis for the injunction, the 1st DCA majority wrote:

“Any person who is a victim of domestic violence or has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence has standing to file a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. § 741.30(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019). Domestic violence is “any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death of one family or household member by another family or household member.” § 741.28(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). 3 Former Husband’s petition alleged past incidents of assault and stalking. However, the alleged incidents of assault and verbal abuse occurred more than four years before Former Husband filed his petition, and are, therefore, too removed in time to support the injunction. See Curl v. Roberts o/b/o E.C., 279 So. 3d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding “[i]ncidents remote in time by as little as a year are insufficient to support entry of a new injunction, absent allegations of current violence or imminent danger that satisfy the statute”).”

On the second point, the 1st DCA majority found that while her accusations were ultimately not true and caused substantial emotional distress to Griffis, Hart had a LEGITIMATE PURPOSE in contacting the State Attorney and asking for an investigation:

“Former Husband alleged Former Wife contacted the court administrator and the State Attorney in 2018 to have him investigated and prosecuted, which constituted stalking. Stalking is defined as the “willful[ ], malicious[ ], and repeated[ ] follow[ing], harass[ing], or cyberstalk[ing of] another person.” § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2019). Section 784.048(1)(a) defines “harass” as “engag[ing] in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.” (emphasis added). In addition, “[a]n injunction against domestic violence requires malicious harassment that consists at the very least of some threat of imminent violence, which excludes mere uncivil behavior that causes distress or annoyance.” 

“Here, Former Husband testified that he had suffered severe emotional distress as he had lost sleep over the potential impact Former Wife’s actions might have on his career. However, the record demonstrates that Former Wife had a legitimate purpose as her communications related to her concerns over the children’s unlawful enrollment at a particular school or were otherwise reports to authorities. … The court administrator testified that Former Wife’s communications with him and the Chief Judge were to report her allegations that the children were not lawfully enrolled in a particular school. Similarly, the record demonstrated that Former Wife contacted the State Attorney in his official capacity to report Former Husband’s alleged fraud. These communications do not constitute stalking, although such actions could cause Former Husband to suffer unnecessary anxiety. We do not condone these communications by the Former Wife, but we hold that the evidence does not support the injunction. Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of the injunction.”

However, one 1st DCA judge dissented. Judge Makar, believing that the 1st DCA should NOT have set aside the injunction, wrote:

“In this domestic injunction case, the former husband sought to restrain his former wife, who has a long history of mental illness, violence and threats against the former husband when they were married (sometimes in the presence of their five children), and her ongoing outlandish behavior. The record reflects that the former husband has been under siege for many years by the former wife and that the tipping point was her campaign to destroy his professional reputation and career (he was a Florida circuit court judge at the time) with false claims that he committed fraud in sending their children to a Gilchrist County school versus one in Levy County. She was also held in contempt of court during the proceedings below because she was unmanageable despite having legal counsel; the trial judge ordered a mental health evaluation in support of the injunction. Under these circumstances, no abuse of discretion is shown in the trial court’s protective order as to the statutory stalking/harassment claim, which was based on recent conduct that had no legitimate purpose and imposed substantial emotional distress.”

Essentially, Judge Makar found that substantial emotional distress and communications devoid of a legitimate purpose had been shown by Griffis, supporting the issuance of an injunction. But his opinion did NOT win the day, and the injunction was tossed out.

In sum, Hart v. Griffis, 288 So.3d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding stalking and repeat/domestic violence injunctions. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) concluded that:

• The wife’s alleged assaults and verbal abuse, 4 years earlier, could not serve as the basis for the present-day issuance of an injunction
• The wife’s contacts with the State Attorney’s Office had a legitimate purpose, even if the allegations about her children unlawfully attending a particular school ultimately weren’t true
• There was also a question as to whether Griffis’s emotional distress was substantial
• As a result, the injunction was SET ASIDE

Judge Makar strongly disagreed, arguing that Griffis made legally sufficient allegations (proven by a preponderance of the evidence) to support the issuance of an injunction. But his opinion did not win the day, and the injunction was tossed out.

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Hart v. Griffis, 288 So.3d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), as it is seminal case law in Tallahassee and North Florida on stalking and domestic violence injunctions.

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