D.C. Court dismisses petition for anti-stalking order

People seek anti-stalking orders (ASOs) in Washington, D.C. for many different reasons. Some petitions involve conduct that legitimately falls within the protections provided by the ASO statute. Others arise from interpersonal disputes that, while frustrating or upsetting, do not satisfy the statutory requirements for stalking.

For example, a person may seek an anti-stalking order because of problems with a neighbor, co-worker, or former romantic partner. But being annoying, rude, crude, obnoxious, or difficult does not, standing alone, constitute stalking.

What Constitutes Stalking Under D.C. Law?

D.C. Code § 22-3133 defines stalking as engaging in a “course of conduct” directed at a specific individual that the defendant intended, knew, or should have known would cause that individual to:

1. Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person;
2. Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or
3. Suffer emotional distress.

The statute defines a “course of conduct” as certain acts committed directly or indirectly, including through one or more third persons, on two or more occasions. The statute identifies conduct such as following, monitoring, placing another person under surveillance, threatening, or communicating to or about another individual. It also addresses interference with, damage to, taking of, or unlawful entry onto another person’s real or personal property, as well as the use of another person’s personal identifying information.

The statutory language, however, must be applied within the limits established by the law and the Constitution.

For example, the fact that the statute refers to “threatening” does not mean that every unpleasant or coercive statement constitutes stalking. The nature of the alleged threat, the circumstances in which it was made, and whether the conduct satisfies the statutory requirements are critical considerations.

Similarly, the statute’s reference to communicating “to or about another individual” does not mean that every communication concerning another person is actionable. Constitutionally protected speech remains protected. Offensive, insulting, or disparaging speech does not automatically become stalking simply because the person on the receiving end finds it objectionable.

The Importance of Early Review

These distinctions matter because a petition for an anti-stalking order can have immediate and significant consequences.

Temporary protective orders (TPOs) may be issued at the initial stage of a case, sometimes based on allegations that ultimately do not establish an actionable claim under the ASO statute. Once issued, a TPO can impose substantial restrictions on the respondent and can affect personal relationships, employment, housing, and other aspects of daily life.

The initial judicial review of these petitions is therefore critical. Claims that do not satisfy the statutory requirements should be identified and dismissed rather than being allowed to proceed simply because the underlying dispute is unpleasant or contentious.

That responsibility should not fall solely on the D.C. Superior Court associate judges who later determine whether a TPO should be converted into a civil protection order (CPO). Careful screening at the magistrate-judge stage can help ensure that the ASO process is reserved for cases involving conduct that actually falls within the statute.

Recent ASO Petition Dismissed

Koehler Law regularly represents individuals involved in anti-stalking order and civil protection order (CPO) proceedings and has extensive experience defending clients against allegations that do not meet the statutory requirements.

Last week, for example, D.C. Superior Court Judge Truong dismissed an ASO petition filed against a Koehler Law client after determining that the applicant had failed to state an actionable claim.

The case arose from a dispute between next-door neighbors concerning noise.

Although the underlying disagreement was significant enough for one neighbor to seek judicial intervention, the alleged conduct did not establish the elements necessary to support an anti-stalking order.

Other cases can arise from similarly contentious circumstances: co-workers who have difficulty working together, former romantic partners who continue to have disagreements after a relationship ends, or neighbors whose conflicts escalate over property, noise, or other everyday issues.

The lesson is straightforward: an interpersonal conflict is not necessarily a stalking case.

An ASO petition must satisfy the specific requirements established by D.C. law. The fact that conduct is offensive, upsetting, unwanted, or even deeply unpleasant does not, by itself, give rise to a statutory stalking claim.

For individuals facing an ASO petition, understanding that distinction can be critical. An experienced attorney can evaluate the allegations against the statutory requirements and determine whether the petition actually states an actionable claim.