Repeat Violence Injunction — Florida § 784.046

Legally reviewed by Tonmiel Rodriguez, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer — last reviewed June 2026.

A repeat violence injunction under Florida § 784.046 can be filed against you by a neighbor, coworker, acquaintance, or anyone else — no prior relationship is required. The two-incident threshold is a powerful and frequently decisive defense: if one or both of the alleged incidents does not legally constitute assault, battery, stalking, or another qualifying offense under Florida law, the entire legal foundation of the injunction fails. I analyze every repeat violence petition against the statutory definitions and build defense strategies around the specific weaknesses in each case. For context on all five Florida injunction types, see our Injunctions hub page.

What Must a Petitioner Prove to Obtain a Repeat Violence Injunction Under § 784.046?

Under Florida § 784.046(6)(b), the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are a victim of “repeat violence.” The statute defines repeat violence in § 784.046(1)(b) as two incidents of violence or stalking, at least one of which occurred within the six months preceding the petition. Each incident must independently constitute one of the qualifying offenses listed in the statute: assault under § 784.011, aggravated assault under § 784.021, battery under § 784.03, aggravated battery under § 784.045, sexual assault or battery, stalking under § 784.048, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, or false imprisonment.

This two-incident threshold is significantly more demanding than the standard for a domestic violence injunction, which requires only one incident or a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger. For repeat violence, there must be two separate qualifying events. If you can demonstrate that one or both of the alleged incidents does not legally qualify — even if the petitioner genuinely found the conduct frightening — the legal standard has not been met and the petition should be denied.

Courts apply the statutory definitions of qualifying offenses. Whether alleged conduct constitutes one of these offenses is a legal question that I analyze for every case. An “assault” under § 784.011 is an intentional, unlawful threat to do violence coupled with the ability and an act creating well-founded fear. A “battery” under § 784.03 is intentional, unwanted touching. “Stalking” under § 784.048(2) is willful, malicious, repeated following or harassment that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.

What Legally Constitutes Stalking for a Repeat Violence Injunction?

Florida § 784.048(2) defines stalking as willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing, or cyberstalking another person in a manner that causes a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, serving no legitimate purpose. The elements are specific and each must be present. “Willful and malicious” excludes accidental or well-intentioned contact. “Repeatedly” means a pattern of conduct — a single incident, however serious, is not stalking. “Substantial emotional distress” is measured objectively: would a reasonable person suffer substantial distress, not merely annoyance. The conduct must also serve no legitimate purpose — a defense that applies in neighbor disputes, workplace conflicts, and other situations involving otherwise lawful contact.

Cyberstalking under § 784.048(1)(d) requires a course of electronic conduct causing substantial emotional distress and serving no legitimate purpose. A single text message or email, however harsh its content, does not typically constitute cyberstalking — the statute requires a repeated pattern. Many repeat violence petitions based on cyberstalking involve limited online communications that do not meet the course-of-conduct threshold.

In neighbor disputes, the “legitimate purpose” element is particularly powerful. Contact related to property boundary issues, HOA enforcement, shared driveway maintenance, or other legitimate neighborhood concerns serves a legitimate purpose even if the neighbor finds it unwanted. Courts recognize this defense and I present it systematically when applicable.

What Defenses Are Available Against a Repeat Violence Injunction?

The most effective defense strategies in repeat violence cases typically include: (1) legal sufficiency challenge to one or both alleged incidents against the specific statutory definitions; (2) documentary evidence contradicting the petitioner’s characterization of events; (3) demonstrating a legitimate purpose for the respondent’s contact; (4) establishing that the petitioner’s distress, while genuine, does not meet the objective reasonable-person standard; and (5) cross-examining the petitioner on inconsistencies between the sworn petition and hearing testimony.

Electronic communications are frequently the most decisive evidence. In workplace disputes, work emails showing the legitimate business purpose of the respondent’s contact can defeat the stalking claim. In neighbor disputes, property records, HOA communications, and letters documenting legitimate property concerns show that the respondent’s conduct served a lawful purpose. In cases involving social or personal acquaintances, text message threads showing the full context of the parties’ relationship — including the petitioner’s own conduct and communications — can completely undermine the petition’s one-sided narrative.

Cross-examination of the petitioner is often the most powerful tool at a final repeat violence hearing. Petitioners who have characterized ordinary conduct as harassment, who have their own history of provocative behavior toward the respondent, or who are using the injunction as a tactical weapon in a collateral dispute frequently cannot maintain their account under focused, rigorous questioning.

What Happens at the Final Repeat Violence Injunction Hearing?

Both parties appear before a circuit court judge. The petitioner presents testimony and evidence first, followed by cross-examination. The respondent then presents their defense through testimony, witnesses, and documentary evidence. The judge decides whether to enter a permanent injunction or dissolve the temporary order. There is no jury. The hearing typically lasts from 30 minutes to several hours depending on the complexity of the allegations.

Preparation determines outcomes. Respondents who arrive at these hearings organized — with documentary evidence in hand, witnesses prepared, and a clear strategy for cross-examination — win far more often than those who rely on their own credibility alone. I review all available evidence with clients before every hearing and develop a specific, fact-by-fact response to each allegation in the petition.

What Are the Consequences of a Final Repeat Violence Injunction?

A final repeat violence injunction prohibits contact with the petitioner and requires the respondent to stay away from the petitioner’s residence, workplace, and other specified locations. It is entered into FCIC and NCIC and appears on background checks run by employers, landlords, and licensing boards. Violations are criminal offenses under § 784.047 — a first violation is a first-degree misdemeanor (up to 1 year in jail) and a second or subsequent violation is a third-degree felony (up to 5 years in prison). Law enforcement may arrest without a warrant on probable cause of a violation.

Unlike domestic violence injunctions, repeat violence injunctions do not automatically trigger the federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) in all circumstances — the federal prohibition applies specifically to qualifying domestic relations orders. However, Florida courts have authority to include firearms restrictions as terms of any injunction, and any case involving an intimate partner relationship may independently qualify under the federal statute. I review the specific firearms implications of every injunction with my clients.

In workplace contexts, a repeat violence injunction can make it functionally impossible to continue at the same job location as the petitioner. When an injunction cannot be fully prevented, I work to ensure any entered order is crafted to recognize legitimate work-related contact and minimize the employment disruption to the respondent.

Can a Repeat Violence Injunction Be Modified or Dissolved?

Yes. Either party may file a motion to modify or dissolve at any time. The court schedules a hearing. Successful dissolution motions typically show a change in circumstances — significant time without incidents, changed living or work arrangements eliminating the need for the original restrictions, or evidence that the petitioner’s original allegations were legally insufficient or factually inaccurate. I prepare dissolution motions with the specific evidence needed to give each client the best chance at a favorable outcome.

As with all Florida injunctions, the protected person cannot unilaterally waive the injunction by agreeing to contact. The order remains binding until a judge formally modifies or dissolves it. Until then, full compliance is mandatory.

How Does a Repeat Violence Injunction Affect Employment and Licensing in Florida?

A final repeat violence injunction is entered into the Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and it appears on standard background checks run by employers, landlords, and professional licensing boards. For respondents employed in fields requiring state licensure — healthcare, contracting, real estate, financial services, education, or security — a final injunction can trigger mandatory disclosure obligations and independent board investigations that carry consequences entirely separate from the injunction itself.

The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) and the Department of Health (DOH) each conduct their own administrative inquiries. Their standards are independent of the court’s findings — a board may view an injunction, even one that did not arise from a violent act, as evidence of conduct incompatible with licensure. In employment contexts, particularly in workplaces where the respondent and petitioner are coworkers, a repeat violence injunction can make it functionally impossible to continue in the same position or location. These employment consequences are often more immediately devastating than the legal restrictions of the order itself.

If you work in a licensed profession, in law enforcement, in the military, or in any field subject to security clearance requirements, the injunction’s collateral consequences can exceed the direct legal restrictions. I discuss these consequences with every client during the initial consultation so the defense strategy accounts for the full stakes involved.

What Happens If You and the Petitioner Are Coworkers or Neighbors?

Repeat violence injunctions frequently arise in workplace disputes and neighbor conflicts — precisely because those are the contexts where non-family parties are in sustained, involuntary contact. When the injunction requires the respondent to stay away from the petitioner’s workplace or residence, and the respondent’s own workplace or residence is the same or nearby, the practical enforcement challenges can be significant. Courts are required to make the injunction workable, and I advocate for terms that recognize legitimate, unavoidable contact when the circumstances require it.

In workplace settings where the respondent cannot realistically avoid the petitioner, the defense strategy includes not only contesting the merits at the final hearing but — if some form of order appears likely — negotiating terms that reflect the realities of the parties’ shared environment. A blanket no-contact order that fails to account for a shared workplace can expose a respondent to technical violations through no fault of their own. The exact wording of the order matters as much as whether it is entered at all.

What Should You Do the Moment You Are Served with a Repeat Violence Injunction?

Read the temporary order completely and comply with every term immediately. Do not contact the petitioner — directly or through intermediaries — for any reason. Do not approach the petitioner’s residence, workplace, or any location specified in the order. Even if you believe the allegations are false, non-compliance before the final hearing damages your credibility with the judge and creates immediate criminal exposure.

Gather all electronic communications between you and the petitioner immediately — text messages, emails, social media records, voicemails. These records frequently tell a different story than the petition and are often the most decisive evidence at the final hearing. Identify any witnesses who were present during the alleged incidents or who have direct knowledge of the parties’ interactions. Note any property records, work communications, or other documentation that establishes the legitimate purpose behind your contact with the petitioner.

Call an attorney immediately. The 15-day window between service and the final hearing is tight, especially when continuances and scheduling considerations are factored in. Evidence that is not preserved in the first few days can be lost. The preparation that wins repeat violence hearings begins on the day of service. I am available at (863) 774-4556, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as a qualifying incident for a repeat violence injunction?

Florida § 784.046(1)(b) requires two incidents qualifying as: assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault or battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense causing physical injury or death. Rude or upsetting conduct that does not meet these definitions does not qualify.

Does the repeat violence injunction require a prior relationship?

No. The repeat violence injunction under § 784.046 is available between any parties regardless of relationship — neighbors, coworkers, acquaintances, or strangers can all be parties to a repeat violence injunction.

Can two stalking incidents satisfy the repeat violence requirement?

Yes. Florida § 784.046(1)(b) includes stalking and aggravated stalking as qualifying violence. Two separate incidents of stalking conduct — each independently meeting the § 784.048 definition — can support a repeat violence petition.

What are the consequences of a final repeat violence injunction?

A final repeat violence injunction prohibits all contact with the petitioner, requires stay-away from specified locations, and is entered into FCIC/NCIC for background check purposes. Violations are criminal under § 784.047.

How long does a repeat violence injunction last?

A final repeat violence injunction under § 784.046 can be entered indefinitely with no automatic expiration until a court modifies or dissolves it on motion by either party.

Can I appeal a wrongly entered repeat violence injunction?

Yes. A final injunction is a final appealable order. In the 10th Judicial Circuit, appeals go to the Second District Court of Appeal. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the final order.