Anti-Stalking Orders (ASO) in Washington, D.C.

Both.

Yes. The same benefits that apply to CPO settlements apply here: reduced risk, reduced cost, more flexible terms, and immediate resolution instead of a months-long wait on a two-judge calendar. In September 2026 the court dismissed a stalking case mid-trial for lack of evidence; in other matters the parties resolve the case by agreement.

Up to two years, with the possibility of renewal in one-year increments.

A TPO can be issued at the initial stage, sometimes on allegations that later prove not to state a claim. Once issued it can impose substantial restrictions affecting relationships, employment and housing. That is why early review of the petition matters: a claim that does not meet the statute should be identified and dismissed rather than allowed to proceed.

The standard is objective: what a reasonable person in the respondent’s position would have known. The respondent must have had the required mental state on at least two of the alleged occasions.

Only narrowly. Constitutionally protected speech remains protected. The statute reaches only categories outside First Amendment protection, such as true threats, obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct. In 2026 the D.C. Court of Appeals held in Rokhvand v. Herzfeld that hostile or offensive political speech does not become a true threat merely because it causes fear or distress.

A substantial amount. The fear, alarm or emotional distress must rise significantly above what is commonly experienced in day-to-day living and involve a severe intrusion on the person’s privacy and autonomy. Emotional distress means significant mental suffering that may, but need not, require professional treatment; fear for safety means fear of significant injury or comparable harm.

No. Being annoying, rude, crude, obnoxious or difficult does not, standing alone, constitute stalking. The conduct must meet the statutory elements. In August 2026, D.C. Superior Court dismissed an ASO petition arising from a noise dispute between next-door neighbors because the allegations did not state an actionable claim.

Stalking under D.C. Code § 22-3133 is a course of conduct directed at a specific person that the respondent intended, knew, or should have known would cause that person to fear for their safety, feel seriously alarmed, disturbed or frightened, or suffer emotional distress. A course of conduct means two or more occasions, with each 24-hour period counted as a separate occasion, and at least one occasion within 90 days of the petition.

An ASO requires no relationship between the parties. It is based on a course of conduct directed at a specific person. A CPO requires a domestic relationship and is based on an intra-family offense.

An anti-stalking order is a D.C. Superior Court order directing a person to refrain from following, monitoring, placing under surveillance, threatening, interfering with or otherwise harassing another person. It is valid for up to two years, renewable in one-year increments, and is enforceable by criminal sanctions.