Koehler Law prevailed on October 21, 2026 in yet another civil protection order (CPO) trial in D.C. Superior Court. Denying a petition that alleged stalking, the court found that the respondent’s angry and offensive text messages did not establish grounds for issuing a protective order.
Stalking Allegations Following the End of a Workplace Relationship
Our client, the respondent, was accused of stalking a former romantic partner after their workplace relationship ended.
At trial, the petitioner introduced numerous text messages our client had sent following the breakup. Some of these messages were angry, profane, and even cruel. Our client had also threatened to “hurt” the petitioner’s brother.
The petitioner testified that the messages frightened her and caused her to fear for her own physical safety and that of her brother.
Despite this testimony, the court ultimately agreed with the defense and denied the petition for a civil protection order.
The Court Found Insufficient Grounds for a Civil Protection Order
Under D.C. law, a civil protection order may be issued when the petitioner establishes the required statutory grounds for relief.
In this case, there was no evidence that our client had committed simple assault, destruction of property, unlawful entry, or other criminal offenses commonly associated with domestic violence.
The central question was whether the text messages constituted stalking under D.C. law.
The court concluded that they did not.
The First Amendment Protects Angry and Offensive Speech
As the D.C. Court of Appeals explained in Mashaud v. Boone, 295 A.3d 1139 (D.C. 2023), the District’s stalking statute must be interpreted consistently with the First Amendment.
Speech does not lose constitutional protection merely because it is offensive, upsetting, profane, or cruel. Certain categories of speech, including true threats, may fall outside First Amendment protection.
In this case, our client’s text messages were often bitter and insulting. But they did not threaten physical harm to the petitioner.
The defense also presented evidence explaining the context of our client’s statements about “hurting” the petitioner’s brother.
Although the petitioner interpreted these statements as threats of physical violence, the evidence established a different meaning: our client was referring to his ability to use political influence to damage the brother’s career, not to cause him bodily injury.
This distinction was important to the court’s assessment of the stalking allegations.
D.C.’s Stalking Law Is Intended to Address Serious Intrusions on Personal Privacy and Autonomy
According to D.C. Code § 22-3131, the District’s stalking law is intended to protect people from conduct involving serious intrusions on their personal privacy and autonomy.
The statute is not intended to punish every unpleasant interaction, offensive statement, or bitter exchange following the end of a relationship.
Although the petitioner testified that our client’s messages caused her considerable distress, the court concluded that the evidence did not establish the statutory grounds necessary to issue a civil protection order.
Another Successful CPO Defense in D.C. Superior Court
The court denied the petition, and our client prevailed after trial.
The case illustrates an important distinction in D.C. civil protection order proceedings: speech that is angry, offensive, or emotionally distressing does not necessarily constitute stalking.
When a CPO petition is based on allegedly threatening communications, the precise language, surrounding circumstances, and constitutional protections may be critical to the outcome.
Koehler Law represents both petitioners and respondents in contested civil protection order proceedings in Washington, D.C., including cases involving allegations of stalking and threats.