92 F. Supp. 3d 1201
M.D. Fla.2015Background
- Burroughs challenges Florida Stat. § 784.048(2) as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- She fears arrest for willfully communicating language likely to cause substantial emotional distress, though not obscenity or fighting words.
- The State charged Burroughs with stalking; the case was dismissed after a motion for a statement of particulars and later prosecutorial decisions.
- Plaintiff alleges the statute’s cyberstalking and harassment provisions reach protected speech and lack a legitimate purpose.
- Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint; Burroughs seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction, arguing facial invalidity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 784.048 facially overbroad? | Burroughs asserts substantial overbreadth due to protected speech reach. | Defendants contend the statute primarily targets conduct, not protected speech. | Not facially overbroad; statute largely governs conduct with limited protected-speech reach. |
| Does the savings clause exclude protected speech sufficiently to avoid overbreadth? | Savings clause under-inclusive/over-inclusive affects protected speech. | Savings clause shields constitutionally protected activities like picketing where applicable. | Savings clause prevents only limited protected-speech applications; overall statute survives overbreadth challenge. |
| Does strict/exacting scrutiny apply to a facial overbreadth challenge to § 784.048? | Strict scrutiny should apply to content-based aspects affecting protected speech. | Statute is mostly conduct-based; exacting scrutiny not required for facial challenge. | Exacting scrutiny not required; analysis focuses on legitimate conduct versus protected speech within statute’s sweep. |
| Should the case have been pursued as an as-applied challenge or under § 1983? | Plaintiff brings facial challenge directly under the Constitution. | Case may be more appropriate as § 1983 claim; however, court addresses facial challenge. | Court proceeds on facial-overbreadth theory; dismissal upheld for lack of substantial constitutional flaw. |
| What is the court's disposition on the preliminary injunction and the complaint? | seeks injunctive relief to block enforcement pending resolution. | Insists injunctive relief is moot given the constitutional ruling. | Motions to dismiss granted; Amended Complaint dismissed with prejudice; preliminary injunction moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bouters v. State, 659 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1995) (stalking statute read as conducting-based; not overbroad as applied to conduct)
- Staley v. Jones, 239 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2001) (overbreadth review focusing on conduct; savings clause helps limit reach)
- United States v. Petrovic, 701 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2012) (statute directed at conduct; not unprotected speech)
- United States v. Sayer, 748 F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 2014) (conduct-focused approach; most applications target unprotected conduct)
- Cassidy, 814 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Md. 2011) (as-applied strict scrutiny found lacking compelling government interest)
- Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 2006) (harassment statute not overbroad where aimed at feared communications)
- Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014) (federal stalking statute upheld; focuses on conduct with criminal intent)
- Dean, 635 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2011) (overbreadth analysis requires substantial unconstitutional applications)