192 So. 3d 603
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- James H. Smith II appealed a final injunction for protection against stalking entered in favor of his neighbor, Shane Wiker.
- The injunction barred Smith from approaching within 500 feet of Wiker's residence and ordered removal of cameras bordering Wiker's property within ten days.
- The injunction also stated Smith "may travel on his driveway to enter and leave his property but may not linger on his driveway," while permitting driveway use for ten days to comply with camera removal.
- Smith argued the "no linger" provision unconstitutionally infringed his property rights under article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution and was overbroad because it prohibited lawful uses of his property.
- The Second District affirmed the injunction in all respects except the driveway lingering prohibition, which it found overbroad and remanded for narrowing to target harassment only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prohibition on "lingering" on Smith's driveway is constitutionally permissible/overbroad | Smith: it unconstitutionally restricts his property rights and lawful uses of his driveway; court should prohibit only harassing acts | Wiker: restraint necessary to prevent stalking/harassment of neighbor | Court: provision is overbroad; reversed and remanded to narrowly tailor a prohibition targeted at harassing conduct |
| Whether remainder of injunction was proper | Smith: challenged primarily the driveway restriction; did not successfully overturn other provisions | Wiker: other restrictions (500-foot stay-away, camera removal, no contact) were necessary for protection | Court: affirmed the injunction in its entirety except the driveway lingering clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Law Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991) (property rights are basic substantive rights under the Florida Constitution)
- Clark v. Allied Assocs., Inc., 477 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (injunctions should not be broader than necessary and must be particularized)
- Brower v. Hubbard, 643 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (injunctions must be tailored to avoid prohibiting permissible activities)
- Leesburg Humane Society, Inc. v. Kauffman, 546 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (temporary injunctions cannot bar lawful property improvements unrelated to the harm)
- Webb v. Jacobson, 175 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (stalking injunction overbroad where it banned access to social media sites generally)
- Neptune v. Lanoue, 178 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (directing narrowing of an injunction that broadly prohibited online postings)