Stalking and Aggravated Stalking Charges in Florida: Elements, Penalties, and the Injunction Overlap

Stalking in Florida is not one specific act. It is a pattern. Under Section 784.048, Florida Statutes, a person commits stalking by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing, or cyberstalking someone else. On its own, that is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. The charge becomes aggravated stalking, a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison, the moment the conduct includes a credible threat, continues after a court injunction already prohibits it, or targets a child under 16. This is also one of the few Florida charges with a civil twin: the same conduct can support a victim’s request for a civil stalking injunction, a separate process from the criminal case entirely. This article explains what the state has to prove for each version of the charge, how the aggravating circumstances work, how the criminal charge differs from the civil injunction, and where a newer, related law on tracking devices and apps fits in.

An arrest for stalking is not evidence that the underlying conduct actually meets the statute’s definition, and Florida law does not assume the person accused is guilty. This article is general legal information, not a substitute for advice based on the specific facts of a case.

What Florida’s stalking statute actually requires

Stalking is built from defined terms, and the definitions do most of the work in these cases. Under § 784.048, the state must prove the conduct was willful, malicious, and repeated, and that it falls into one of the statute’s specific categories:

• Following. Physically tracking or trailing the victim.
• Harassing. Engaging in a “course of conduct” directed at a specific person that causes that person substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.
• Cyberstalking. Using electronic communication (words, images, or both) directed at a specific person, again causing substantial emotional distress with no legitimate purpose.

“Course of conduct” is itself a defined term: a pattern of acts over a period of time, however short, that shows a continuity of purpose. The statute is explicit that it does not reach constitutionally protected activity, such as picketing or organized protest: a distinction that matters in cases that brush up against speech or assembly. Because “repeatedly” is not tied to a fixed number of incidents, whether a given fact pattern adds up to a “course of conduct” is often the most contested question in a stalking case, not whether any single incident happened.

Simple stalking vs. aggravated stalking

The base charge and the aggravated version share the same underlying conduct (following, harassing, or cyberstalking), but the aggravated tier adds one more element, and the penalty gap between the two is large:

	Stalking (misdemeanor)	Aggravated stalking (felony)
Statute	§ 784.048(2)	§ 784.048(3)–(5)
Core conduct	Willful, malicious, repeated following, harassing, or cyberstalking	Same conduct, plus one aggravating factor below
Classification	First-degree misdemeanor	Third-degree felony
Maximum penalty	1 year in jail, $1,000 fine	5 years in prison, $5,000 fine
Governed by	§ 775.082 / § 775.083 (misdemeanor penalties)	§ 775.082 / § 775.083 (felony penalties)

Three ways stalking becomes aggravated stalking

Any one of the following turns ordinary stalking into a third-degree felony:

1. A credible threat is added. The person doing the following, harassing, or cyberstalking also makes a credible threat to the victim.
2. The conduct continues after a court order already prohibits it. This covers a violation of an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence, an injunction for protection against domestic violence, or any other court-imposed order prohibiting the person’s conduct toward the victim or the victim’s property, no separate credible threat is required in this category.
3. The victim is a child under 16. Stalking a minor under 16 is aggravated stalking on its own, without needing a credible threat.

“Credible threat,” in turn, has its own statutory definition: a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two (including a threat made by electronic communication, or one implied by a pattern of conduct) that places the target in reasonable fear for their own safety or the safety of their family or close associates, made by someone with the apparent ability to carry it out. Because that definition allows a threat to be implied rather than spoken outright, whether a given pattern of conduct rises to a “credible threat” is frequently the central dispute in an aggravated stalking case.

Sentencing: the no-contact order

Stalking cases carry a sentencing feature worth knowing about up front. On conviction, Florida law directs the sentencing court to consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which can remain in effect for up to 10 years: separate from, and in addition to, any jail or prison sentence. We cover how no-contact conditions work generally, including how and when they can be modified, in No-Contact Orders in Florida.

Criminal charge vs. civil stalking injunction: not the same case

Stalking is unusual among Florida charges because the same conduct that supports a criminal charge can also support a separate, civil process: an injunction for protection against stalking under Section 784.0485, Florida Statutes. The two run on different tracks, with different rules, and one can exist without the other:

	Criminal stalking charge	Civil stalking injunction
Who brings it	State Attorney, after a law enforcement referral or arrest	The alleged victim (or a parent/guardian, for a minor), filing a petition directly in circuit court
Standard of proof	Beyond a reasonable doubt	Preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)
Right to a jury	Yes, for the criminal case	No, decided by a judge
What it produces	A criminal record if convicted; possible jail or prison	A civil injunction ordering no contact; not a criminal conviction by itself
What happens if violated	New criminal charges for the underlying conduct	Can be enforced as civil or criminal contempt, or separately prosecuted as its own crime under § 784.0487

A victim does not have to wait for an arrest or a criminal filing to seek a civil injunction, and a criminal case does not automatically produce one. It is common for both to be in motion around the same set of facts, but they are litigated separately, with separate lawyers, separate hearings, and separate standards of proof, a distinction that catches people off guard on both sides of a case.

A related but separate charge: tracking devices and apps

Stalking cases increasingly involve GPS trackers and tracking apps rather than, or in addition to, physical following. Florida has a dedicated statute for this, Section 934.425, Florida Statutes, which prohibits installing a tracking device or tracking application on another person’s property or belongings without consent. Reported changes effective October 1, 2025 significantly increase the penalty in domestic or stalking-related circumstances, up from the law’s original second-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony in those contexts. Because this is a recent legislative change, the exact effective date, scope, and whether it applies to every tracking scenario or only specified ones should be confirmed against the current statutory text before it is cited to a client; it is flagged for verification below.

Common defenses in stalking cases

Because so much of a stalking case turns on the statute’s defined terms rather than a single disputed act, defenses tend to target those definitions directly:

• No “course of conduct.” A handful of isolated, unrelated contacts may not show the continuity of purpose the statute requires.
• Legitimate purpose. Contact tied to a legitimate reason (co-parenting, a shared business, a landlord-tenant relationship, ongoing litigation) can defeat the “no legitimate purpose” element of harassment or cyberstalking.
• No substantial emotional distress. The statute requires the conduct actually cause substantial emotional distress to that specific person, not merely that it was unwelcome.
• Constitutionally protected activity. The statute expressly excludes picketing and other organized protest from “course of conduct.”
• No credible threat. For the aggravated charge specifically, the state must connect the conduct to an actual credible threat as defined by statute, not just alarming or persistent behavior on its own.

A stalking arrest is not the end of the story

Because a stalking charge rests so heavily on how the state characterizes a pattern of contact, and because the same conduct can trigger both a criminal case and a separate civil injunction, these cases reward a close, early read of exactly what is alleged and when. No outcome can be promised in advance, but understanding which version of the charge is in play, and what the state actually has to prove, is the starting point for defending it.

MK Law’s criminal trial attorneys defend stalking and aggravated stalking charges across South Florida, including cases that overlap with a civil injunction or a domestic violence designation. Call MK Law at 954.865.6032, available 24/7, to talk through the specifics of a pending case.

Frequently asked questions

Is stalking always a felony in Florida?

No. Simple stalking under § 784.048(2) is a first-degree misdemeanor. It becomes a third-degree felony, aggravated stalking, only when a credible threat is added, the conduct violates an existing court injunction or order, or the victim is under 16.

Does the victim have to be physically followed for it to be stalking?

No. Harassment (a course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress with no legitimate purpose) and cyberstalking (the same, done electronically) are both independently sufficient: physical following is only one of the three ways the statute can be satisfied.

What’s the difference between a stalking charge and a stalking injunction?

A stalking charge is a criminal case brought by the State Attorney, decided beyond a reasonable doubt, with the possibility of a jury and a criminal record. A stalking injunction under § 784.0485 is a civil case the alleged victim files directly, decided by a judge under the lower preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. They can run at the same time over the same conduct, or either one can exist without the other.

Can texting or messaging someone repeatedly be charged as stalking?

It can, under the cyberstalking category, if the messages are part of a course of conduct that causes the recipient substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. A single unwanted message, or messages tied to a legitimate reason for contact, generally does not meet that standard on its own.

Does domestic violence stalking work differently?

Stalking and aggravated stalking are both listed offenses under Florida’s domestic violence statute when committed between family or household members, which can affect bond, no-contact conditions, and record-sealing eligibility the same way other domestic violence charges do. See Criminal Charges for Domestic Violence in Florida for how that designation changes a case.

Can a stalking charge be based on things that happened before an injunction existed?

Conduct that predates an injunction can still support the base misdemeanor stalking charge if it independently meets the statute’s elements. The injunction-violation path to aggravated stalking specifically requires that the conduct continue after the injunction or court order was already in place.

Flagged for legal verification before go-live

• The exact misdemeanor and felony penalty figures (1 year/$1,000 for stalking; 5 years/$5,000 for aggravated stalking), sourced from secondary summaries and the general §§ 775.082/775.083 penalty framework, not a primary-text read of the current § 784.048; confirm before go-live.
• The precise statutory definitions of “harass,” “course of conduct,” “cyberstalking,” and “credible threat” quoted or paraphrased above: cross-checked across multiple independent secondary sources (Justia’s statute mirror, a Florida courts domestic-violence stalking outline, and several Florida criminal-defense-firm summaries) for consistency, but not a direct flsenate.gov read; confirm exact current wording before quoting to a client.
• The three aggravating categories (credible threat; violation of an existing injunction/court order; victim under 16) and the “no credible threat required for a minor victim” rule, consistent across sources, but confirm against current statutory subsections.
• The 10-year maximum duration for a sentencing no-contact order, sourced from secondary summaries of the sentencing provision; confirm the exact statutory basis and current maximum.
• The § 784.0485 civil stalking injunction process (who may file, standard of proof, enforcement via § 784.0487), cross-checked across multiple sources but not a primary read of current § 784.0485/§ 784.0487 text.
• The § 934.425 tracking-device/application law, especially the reported October 1, 2025 amendment raising the penalty to a third-degree felony in domestic/stalking contexts, this is the article’s most time-sensitive claim; confirm the actual effective date, exact scope, and current classification against the current statutory text before go-live, since this reflects a very recent legislative change.