Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Domestic Violence

When a romantic relationship ends, the break-up may lead to unwanted communication or contact from a former partner. When this communication or contact crosses the line from harmless to distressing, a party might seek a domestic violence injunction, particularly related to stalking. This was an issue in the case Ditana v. Edwards, 4D20-1619 (Fla. 4th DCA June 30, 2021).

The parties were previously in a relationship. When they broke up, the accused stalker was alleged to have contacted third parties about the alleged victim, telling them the victim committed criminal activities and otherwise exhibited improper behavior. Because of this, the alleged victim was on leave from his job. There was also testimony from the alleged victim that he was physically attacked by the alleged stalker previously and that his property had been damaged by the alleged stalker. An injunction of two years was eventually entered and the accused stalker appealed.

The accused argued on appeal that his communications to third parties about the alleged victim’s criminal and improper behavior served a legitimate purpose. The appellate court agreed that it did as it relates to the alleged victim’s employer and the police, however, communication with the alleged victim’s family, friends and neighbors was found not to serve a legitimate purpose. The trial court found the accused’s motive in reporting to the police and the employer was not “pure”, however the appellate court noted the motive is irrelevant. The appellate court further found that the contact with neighbors and friends “amounts to more than annoyance or embarrassment and is sufficient to establish the element of distress necessary for stalking.”

Finally, as to the accused’s claim that the injunction operates as a prior restraint on his First Amendment rights, the appellate court agreed, holding “To the extent that the language of the final injunction may prevent appellant from speaking about appellee to his employer, the injunction constitutes a prior restraint and violates the First Amendment. As in David v. Textor, if appellant’s communications to the employer are defamatory, appellee can sue appellant. As to other third parties, such as the police, the injunction as written does not in any way prohibit appellant from communicating with other persons or entities about appellee. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence, except as to the prior restraint in contacting appellee’s employer about appellee.”

Schedule a consultation with a Miami domestic violence lawyer to learn more about the law and how it may apply to your case.