HENRY GOOSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY WALKER AND MARTIN WALKER, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A neighbor appealed an injunction prohibiting him from photographing or videotaping his neighbors, arguing it violated the First Amendment. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that stalking conduct—even if it involves recording—is not constitutionally protected speech when it constitutes a course of harassing conduct causing substantial emotional distress.
The injunction is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment. Conduct amounting to stalking under Florida Statutes section 784.048 is not protected by the First Amendment, even when it involves recording or surveillance activities.
[1] Injunctions against repeat violence may be issued under Florida Statutes section 784.046.
[2] Stalking, defined as willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing another person, can form the basis for an injunction against repeat violence.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Conduct that amounts to a persistent course of hounding, harassment and unreasonable surveillance, even if conducted in a public or semi-public place, may nevertheless rise to the level of invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion.”
Establishes that surveillance and harassment, even in public places, are not constitutionally protected and can support injunctive relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and appellees are neighbors with a history of mutual injunctions against repeat violence. Appellant videotaped the appellees on two to four …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intrusion Upon Seclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Appellant and appellees are neighbors who do not get along with each other. They have obtained mutual injunctions against repeat violence in the past. Appellant was enjoined, by the order which he appeals, from photographing or videotaping the appellees or pretending to do so. He argues that the injunction is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. We affirm.
Section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1997) authorizes the issuance of injunctions to prevent repeat violence, which is defined under subsection 1(b) as follows:
“Repeat violence” means two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner’s immediate family member, (emphasis added)
“Stalking” is defined in section 784.048(2), Florida Statutes (1997) as follows:
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person' commits the offense of stalking....
“Harass” is defined in section 784.048(l)(a) as:
(l)(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity in- eludes picketing or other organized protests.
At the evidentiary hearing, the testimony showed that appellant had videotaped the appellees on two to four occasions during the preceding four months, when the appellees were in their own yard or the adjoining area. We are satisfied from that evidence, as well as other evidence, including appellant’s explanation of why he engages in this conduct, that there is evidence to support the finding implicit in the injunction that his conduct constitutes stalking.
In regard to appellant’s argument that his conduct is constitutionally protected, we find Wolfson v. Lewis, 924 F.Supp. 1413 (E.D.Pa.1996), helpful. In Wolfson the issue was whether freedom of the press entitled television reporters to repeatedly videotape the subjects of an investigative news story. The court granted injunctive relief prohibiting reporters from invading the privacy of the plaintiffs, with or without cameras, explaining:
Conduct that amounts to a persistent course of hounding, harassment and unreasonable surveillance, even if conducted in a public or semi-public place, may nevertheless rise to the level of invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion.
In Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1995), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that conduct which amounts to stalking under section 784.048 is not protected by the First Amendment:
While the First Amendment confers on each citizen a powerful right to express oneself, it gives the [citizen] no boon to jeopardize the health, safety, and rights of others. Operation Rescue v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 626 So. 2d 664, 675 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1092, 114 S.Ct. 923, 127 L.Ed.2d 216 (1994), aff'd in part sub nom. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994), on remand, 644 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1994).
659 So. 2d at 237. See also Roe v. Flynn, 690 So. 2d 1341, 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (affirming an injunction, and noting that “the trial court correctly exercised judicial restraint in crafting a remedy to accomplish the reduction of neighborhood hostilities by the least restrictive means.”)
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Animal Rights Found. OF Fla., Inc. v. Siegel, 867 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…. Regarding the use of video cameras, I believe that in order to prevent harassment of those who attempt to enter and exit the subdivision and West-gate, the picketers should be prohibited from using video cameras to tape them. See Goosen v. Walker, 714 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (upholding an injunction preventing videotaping of neighbors and rejecting the notion that the injunction prohibited a form of free speech; stating that “ ‘[cjonduct that amounts to a persistent course of hounding, harassme…1 / 2
-
Blaylock v. Zeller, 932 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…titled to no more. Id; see also Exceletech, Inc. v. Williams, 579 So. 2d 850, 852-53 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Also, we find no error because Blaylock agreed to most of the terms of the injunction, which are unobjectionable. See, e.g., Goosen v. Walker, 714 So. 2d 1149, 1149-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming a judgment under section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1997), that enjoined neighbor from photographing or videotaping his neighbors). As to the firearms prohibition, Zeller concedes he did not ask for such a pro…
-
Caterino v. Torello, 276 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…nd not a course of conduct as required to support the entry of a permanent injunction against stalking). We also note that repeatedly videotaping and photographing another without a legitimate purpose can constitute stalking. See Goosen v. Walker, 714 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In this case, however, Ms. Caterino testified that she took the photographs of Mrs. Torello for a legitimate purpose—the county code violation investigation. See Paulson, 251 So. 3d at 989 n.3 (noting that the filing of c…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (U.S. 1994)
- Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1995)
- Operation Rescue v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 626 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1993)
- RAE v. John F. Flynn, M.D., 690 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Operation Rescue v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 644 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1994)
- THE Florida BAR v. Catalano, 644 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1994)
- Marshall v. Nelson Elec., 510 U.S. 1092 (U.S. 1994)
- Mikhail v. Cal. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 510 U.S. 1092 (U.S. 1994)