Attorney for Stalking Charges | Repeated Contact Allegation Resolved with a Non Prosecution Outcome

The client explained that he had contacted the complainant numerous times believing sincerely that he was returning belongings she had left behind and that his communication was not harmful or threatening. 

However, law enforcement viewed the pattern of communication, frequency, and persistence as sufficient to initiate a stalking inquiry. 

Because D.C. prosecutors evaluate both the objective impact of the conduct and the subjective intent behind the communication, the client’s explanation required substantial clarification to prevent escalation. 

The attorney for stalking charges immediately began gathering contextual information to demonstrate that the client did not intend to harass, intimidate, or cause distress, and that his actions were rooted in misunderstanding rather than malicious motive.

Under D.C. Code § 22-3133, an individual may face criminal liability if he knowingly engages in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear or serious emotional distress and if he disregards, or should have disregarded, the fact that such conduct is unwanted. 

A course of conduct may include persistent messages, following, appearing at a person’s residence or workplace, sending unsolicited items, or threatening to disseminate personal information. 

Though penalties vary, violations can lead to misdemeanor or felony consequences depending on the severity, prior acts, or presence of aggravating factors, underscoring the need for careful legal strategy from the outset.

Stalking conduct in the District generally includes repeated actions such as following, monitoring, contacting, or attempting to communicate with another person without consent in a manner that causes fear, intimidation, or distress. Examples include repeated approaches, ongoing surveillance, repeated unwanted messages, or sending unsolicited items. 

Because these acts are evaluated both objectively and subjectively, even actions done with benign intent may be criminalized if they reasonably cause the complainant to feel unsafe. 

The attorney for stalking charges focused on distinguishing innocent conduct from malicious pursuit and emphasized the absence of any threat, coercive element, or intent to instill fear.

Counsel analyzed the client’s communication patterns and categorized them according to commonly evaluated stalking behaviors within District prosecutions, including:

Persistent attempts to approach or communicate without consent.

Repeated messages through electronic or telecommunication channels.

Appearing near locations associated with the complainant.

Sending items or messages despite explicit or implicit signals to stop.

Conduct that the complainant interprets as emotionally distressing, intrusive, or fear inducing.

Although some of these elements appeared in the complaint, the attorney demonstrated that the client’s motivation was limited to retrieving and returning personal property and expressing regret about a personal misunderstanding, not an intention to intimidate or monitor the complainant.

Counsel emphasized that the client was genuinely remorseful for causing discomfort and immediately ceased all communication once he understood that the complainant no longer wished to be contacted. 

The client wrote a sincere letter expressing his understanding of the consequences of his actions and outlining the steps he would take to avoid similar issues in the future. 

Family members and mentors provided letters underscoring the client’s character, responsibility, and history of nonviolence. 

These materials helped demonstrate that the behavior was an isolated mistake rather than evidence of a pattern or ongoing threat.

The attorney also stressed that none of the client’s messages contained threats or coercive language, and that all communication was tied to returning items or expressing regret. 

Importantly, the complainant expressed that she did not wish to pursue harsh prosecution and only wanted the contact to stop. 

The attorney presented this factor as key evidence that community safety concerns were minimal and that prosecutorial resources would be better allocated to more serious cases.