A Florida court has reversed a dating violence injunction that was previously granted to Danielle Bartoletta against Jordan Santos. The District Court of Appeal of Florida ruled that the evidence presented did not show that Bartoletta was in imminent danger of further violence from Santos. This decision is significant as it clarifies the requirements for obtaining such injunctions in the state.
The case, Jordan Santos v. Danielle Bartoletta (Docket No. 2D20-3652), stems from an incident that occurred on October 9, 2020, when Bartoletta accused Santos of attacking and choking her. Following the incident, Bartoletta filed a petition for an injunction for protection against dating violence. The trial court initially granted a temporary injunction, which led to a final hearing where both parties presented their testimonies.
During the final hearing, Bartoletta testified about the violent encounter, stating that although Santos had never previously threatened or harmed her, the attack left her with significant injuries. She claimed that Santos said, "Holy shit, you're good!" during the assault. Despite this, Bartoletta acknowledged that Santos had not attempted to contact her since the incident, even though he knew her home and work addresses, phone number, and social media information.
The court's ruling emphasized that while the trial court has broad discretion in issuing injunctions, such orders must be supported by competent and substantial evidence. The judge, Silberman, noted that to obtain a final injunction, the petitioner must demonstrate reasonable cause to believe they are in imminent danger of becoming a victim of further violence. The court stated, "the record lacks competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that Bartoletta had reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of another act of physical violence."
The ruling pointed out that although Bartoletta was indeed a victim of one instance of dating violence, the evidence did not support a conclusion that she was at risk of future harm. Bartoletta had not shown any ongoing threats or attempts by Santos to contact her after the incident. The court referenced a previous case, Brungart v. Pullen, where it was determined that a single incident of violence does not automatically justify a protective injunction.
This ruling has implications for future cases involving dating violence injunctions in Florida. It reinforces the necessity for petitioners to provide clear evidence of ongoing threats or imminent danger to successfully obtain such legal protections. The decision may affect individuals seeking similar injunctions, as they will need to meet a higher standard of proof regarding their fears of future violence.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Bartoletta will appeal this ruling. The court's decision stands unless challenged in a higher court. There are no related cases pending that could directly influence this ruling, but it may serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future.