A Florida appellate court has reversed a stalking injunction against Luis A. Santiago, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support claims made by M.L.'s father. This decision, filed on January 2, 2020, affects Santiago, who faced serious allegations regarding his relationship with M.L., a minor child.

The court found that the trial court did not have competent evidence to justify the permanent injunction, which had been imposed after a series of hearings. The ruling highlights the importance of clear evidence when it comes to allegations of stalking, especially in cases involving minors.

Background

The case originated in Miami-Dade County, where Carlos Leon, the father of M.L., filed a petition against Santiago in July 2017. Leon alleged that Santiago had stalked M.L. since February 2017. The petition included several claims, such as Santiago getting a tattoo of M.L.'s name, posting images of M.L. on social media, mailing packages to M.L., and even appearing outside the father and child's home.

During the course of the hearings, it was established that Santiago had never lived with Leon and M.L. and was a resident of Puerto Rico. The relationship between Santiago and Leon was described as long-distance, and the father filed the petition on behalf of his child, who was unaware of Santiago's actions. After two evidentiary hearings, the trial court ruled in favor of Leon, imposing a permanent injunction against Santiago.

The Ruling

The Third District Court of Appeal, led by Judge SCALES, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that Santiago had engaged in stalking as defined by Florida law. The court stated, "Because the record is devoid of any such evidence, we are compelled to reverse the final judgment imposing the stalking injunction against him."

The court emphasized that for an injunction to be valid, it must be based on competent and substantial evidence proving that the respondent had willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed, harassed, or cyberstalked the victim. The judges noted that the trial court had not adequately addressed the statutory definitions of stalking during the hearings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for how stalking cases are handled, particularly those involving minors. The court's decision reinforces the necessity for clear and compelling evidence when seeking injunctions for stalking. It also illustrates the challenges parents may face when trying to protect their children from perceived threats.

Moreover, the ruling clarifies that behaviors deemed