North FL’s Highest Court: “Unneighborly Conduct” Is Not Always Stalking

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

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal set aside a stalking injunction sought by a family against a neighboring family, finding that although the respondents’ conduct was objectionable, it was not likely to cause the petitioners substantial emotional distress.

CASE: Brennan v. Syfrett, 369 So.3d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)

Charge(s): Stalking Injunction

Outcome: Injunction SET ASIDE, as the respondents’ conduct – while objectionable – was not likely to cause “substantial emotional distress” in the petitioners and did not lack any legitimate purpose.

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, causing 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 an injunction against stalking, cyberstalking, repeat violence, dating violence, or domestic violence is pursued, a FINAL HEARING must be held before a permanent injunction can be issued. At that hearing, parties will have the chance to testify, as well as present witnesses and evidence in support of/in opposition to the stalking petition.

It is important to note that at an injunction hearing, the burden of proof is DIFFERENT than it is in a criminal prosecution. The distinction is as follows:

• At an injunction hearing (civil law), the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (e.g. majority of the evidence), that the respondent stalked them, cyberstalked them, or committed repeat/dating/domestic violence
• In a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for stalking, aggravated stalking, or domestic/dating violence, the State must prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant is guilty of each and every element of the charged offense(s) (Hart v. Griffis, 288 So.3d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020))

Moreover, just because a final injunction is issued does NOT mean that injunction is certain to be in effect for the rest of someone’s life. Even a final injunction may be set aside if any of the three following things occur:

• The petitioner (e.g. party who sought the original injunction) moves to dissolve the final injunction on the basis that they no longer feel threatened 
• The respondent moves to dissolve the injunction and makes a sufficient showing (based on the evidence available to the judge) that there has been a substantial enough change in conditions for the injunction to no longer be necessary (usually years or decades after the fact, per Hobbs v. Hobbs, 290 So.3d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020))
• A reviewing court – usually a Florida District Court of Appeal – sets aside the injunction on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to support its issuance

For a stalking/cyberstalking/violence-related injunction to issue, the petitioner must show that a respondent’s conduct was likely to cause substantial emotional distress in a reasonable person. A petitioner “subjectively” experiencing emotional distress, even if it is significant, can’t obtain an injunction unless an objectively reasonable person would feel the same way in their position.

Moreover, the respondent’s contact(s) of the petitioner must have SERVED NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE. A legitimate purpose does not have to be a purpose that is subjectively desirable or fruitful – this is narrowly defined to include any (noncriminal) purpose aside from harassment. Ford v. State, 387 So.3d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)

In certain stalking cases, one or more neighbors may seek an injunction against an individual or family who resides nearby. This is precisely what occurred in one major case heard by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court).

There, a family petitioned a North Florida court to issue a final stalking injunction against their neighbors, who they were involved in a long-running dispute with. Ultimately, the judge did so.

The neighbors (a married couple) appealed to the 1st DCA, arguing that the trial judge DID NOT have a sufficient legal basis to issue the injunction. They argued the following:

• There was inadequate evidence to establish that their conduct had no legitimate purpose (other than harassment)
• There was no evidence that an objectively reasonable person in the petitioners’ position would have suffered substantial emotional distress

The 1st DCA AGREED with the couple’s arguments and SET ASIDE the stalking injunction – finding that although their conduct was “unneighborly,” it did not violate Florida law.

Let’s take a look at the case – Brennan v. Syfrett, 369 So.3d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) – and see what it means for those in Florida involved in stalking injunction proceedings.

KEY CASE: Brennan v. Syfrett, 369 So.3d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)

In Brennan v. Syfrett, 369 So.3d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), the petitioners (the Syfretts) filed for a stalking injunction against the Brennans. The petition was granted – and the injunction issued. At the hearing, the following was revealed:

• The petitioners alleged that the respondents drove four-wheelers on their property in the evening hours and shined the headlights in the direction of the petitioners
• The petitioners also alleged that the respondents installed lights on a shared fence that partially illuminated the petitioners’ property, which they disapproved of
• The petitioners further claimed that the respondents fed their horses too close to the fence line, spread manure and horse feed in close proximity to the shared fence, and also stared at the petitioners on multiple occasions 
• The respondents (the Brennans) argued their behavior did not constitute stalking
• The judge DISAGREED and, based on the above facts, found that the Brennans stalked the Syfretts

On appeal, the Brennans argued that they did not engage in stalking behavior as a matter of law. They cited the following facts:

• The lack of evidence that the Syfrett’s experienced substantial emotional distress (and the lack of evidence to show an objectively reasonable person would’ve suffered substantial emotional distress under the circumstances)
• The fact that their conduct had legitimate purposes, such as feeding their horses, putting lights on their property, or recreational activity 

The 1st DCA AGREED with the Brennans and TOSSED OUT the final injunction. Concluding that there was no evidence of objectively reasonable substantial emotional distress, and no proof that the respondents’ acts lacked a legitimate purpose, the 1st DCA wrote:

“Unneighborly conduct may reach a point when one party decides to seek injunctive relief under section 784.0485, which, among other grounds, provides relief when the respondent has “committed stalking” or “previously threatened, harassed, stalked, cyberstalked, or physically abused the petitioner.” § 784.0485 (1), (3). Stalking injunctions deprive citizens of important rights, including the constitutional right to possess a firearm under section 784.0485(6)(e), Florida Statutes. They carry serious restrictions of freedoms that can also result in criminal liability when violated, with punishment up to one year in the county jail. See § 784.0847(4)(a)(4), Fla. Stat.”

“The stalker’s common purpose is often to strike fear in and demoralize and dehumanize the victim, whereby the stalker hopes to accomplish a deviant, perverse, or other evil act. See, e.g., Lukacs v. Luton, 982 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). … We do not discount the discomfort caused to Appellees. But the trial court reversibly erred by granting the injunction under section 748.0485, Florida Statutes, because the conduct at issue would not have caused serious emotional distress in a reasonable person, and in addition, there was no evidence that the conduct lacked any legitimate purpose. Reversed and Remanded with directions to vacate the injunction.”

In sum, Brennan v. Syfrett, 369 So.3d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) 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:

• The petitioners did NOT sufficiently allege that the respondents’ behavior lacked any legitimate purpose
• In fact, there were non-harassment-related reasons for all of the respondents’ conduct
• Moreover, there was no showing of “objectively reasonable” and substantial emotional distress experienced by the petitioners
• Though the respondents’ conduct may have not been “neighborly,” it was not illegal
• Thus, the injunction was VACATED 

Florida’s legal community should take note of Brennan v. Syfrett, 369 So.3d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), as it makes a clear distinction between “unneighborly” conduct and stalking.

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