Anti-Stalking Laws

To trigger anti-stalking laws the prosecution must link separate acts into a cohesive narrative of harassment. These acts can include following the victim or appearing at their workplace or making non-consensual communication.

We challenge the continuity of these acts. We defend clients by showing that their presence in certain locations was coincidental or legitimate. If a client and the accuser live in the same neighborhood we argue that crossing paths is inevitable and not evidence of stalking. We also look for gaps in the timeline. If there was no contact for months we argue that the course of conduct was broken. We dismantle the narrative of the prosecution by isolating the incidents and showing that each one standing alone was lawful and benign.

The reasonable person standard is the objective filter the law uses to prevent the criminalization of innocent behavior. The jury must decide if an average person in the position of the victim would have felt terrorized.

We contextulize the relationship. In the context of a bitter breakup emotions run high and actions are often misinterpreted. We argue that repeated calls to resolve financial issues or child custody logistics do not constitute stalking because a reasonable person understands the necessity of such communication. We also attack the specific intent element. Most statutes require proof that the defendant knowingly engaged in the conduct. We present evidence that our client was unaware that their contact was unwanted especially if the accuser sent mixed signals by responding to some messages while ignoring others.

The use of AirTags or similar tracking devices to monitor the movements of a person without consent is a felony in many jurisdictions. We see a surge in cases involving hidden trackers on vehicles.

We defend these cases by analyzing the ownership and control of the device. If a client placed a tracker on a family car for the safety of a child or to prevent theft we argue that the intent was protective rather than predatory. We also challenge the legality of the discovery of the device. If the police seized the device without a warrant we move to suppress the evidence. For victims we use forensic sweeps to locate these devices and preserve them as evidence for a criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator.

Social media platforms are the new battleground for stalkers who use fake profiles to harass victims or release private information known as doxxing.

We investigate the origins of these accounts. We use subpoenas to identify the true owner of an anonymous profile. For defense clients we argue that public posts on social media are protected speech. We distinguish between a direct threat sent to a DM and a general venting post on a personal timeline. We argue that anti-stalking laws cannot be used to silence criticism or online disputes unless the speech falls into the narrow category of true threats or incitement to violence. We protect the First Amendment rights of our clients to speak freely online even if that speech is unpopular or offensive.

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A prohibits interstate stalking. The government must prove that the defendant traveled with the intent to kill or injure or harass the victim.

We challenge the jurisdictional element. We argue that incidental travel or the use of the internet does not automatically federalize a domestic dispute. We also defend against the sentencing guidelines which can be severe. We present mitigating evidence to show that the conduct was a result of a mental health crisis or a substance abuse issue rather than a calculated federal crime. We work to keep the case in state court where diversion programs and probation are more likely outcomes than federal prison.

State laws often divide stalking into misdemeanor and felony categories based on aggravating factors. Common aggravators include the possession of a weapon or a violation of a court order or a prior conviction.

We fight to keep charges at the misdemeanor level. We challenge the presence of the aggravating factors. If the allegation involves a violation of a court order we scrutinize the validity of that order. If the order was expired or not properly served the felony enhancement fails. We also negotiate with prosecutors to reduce charges to non-stalking offenses like harassment or trespassing which do not carry the same stigma or collateral consequences such as firearm prohibitions and sex offender registration in some states.

For victims we act quickly to secure an emergency temporary restraining order. We draft detailed affidavits that clearly articulate the specific acts of stalking and the immediate danger.

We ensure that the order is comprehensive. We ask the court to include the workplace and the school of the children and the digital spaces of the victim. We prepare the client to testify at the permanent hearing. We know that the judge needs to hear the fear in the voice of the victim. We organize the evidence of texts and call logs to present a visual representation of the harassment. We argue that a permanent order is necessary to prevent the escalation of the behavior.

Restraining orders are frequently weaponized in divorce and custody battles to gain tactical advantage. A finding of stalking can destroy a parent's chance for custody.

We aggressively defend against these tactical filings. We cross-examine the petitioner to expose inconsistencies in their story. We present evidence of the petitioner initiating contact or baiting the defendant. We argue that the petition is an abuse of process designed to manipulate the family court rather than a genuine plea for safety. We demonstrate that the communication from our client was for a legitimate purpose such as asking to see their children. We aim to secure a dismissal of the petition to protect the civil rights and the reputation of our client.

The Supreme Court has ruled that speech cannot be criminalized simply because it is annoying or offensive. To be stalking speech must constitute a true threat.

We file motions to dismiss charges that are based solely on speech. If a client is picketing a business or protesting a politician or posting critical reviews online that is protected political or commercial speech. We argue that anti-stalking laws are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied to our client. We force the court to distinguish between a criminal threat and a constitutionally protected grievance. We protect the right of our client to speak their mind even if the subject of that speech finds it distressing.

Most stalking statutes contain an exception for conduct that serves a legitimate purpose. This includes the work of private investigators and process servers and journalists.

We gather evidence of the legitimate intent. If a client was hired to investigate the victim for a potential lawsuit their surveillance is lawful. If a client was trying to collect a valid debt their calls are lawful debt collection activity. We produce contracts and licenses to prove the professional nature of the conduct. We argue that the subjective fear of the victim cannot override the legal right of the defendant to engage in legitimate professional or personal business.