Stalking in Louisiana (La. R.S. § 14:40.2)
Stalking is the intentional and repeated following or harassing of another person in a way that would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. The statute targets a pattern of unwanted conduct—not a single act. Understanding the pattern-of-conduct requirement, consent, legitimate purpose, and the objective reasonable-person standard is critical to defense. Many stalking charges grow out of ordinary disputes—divorce, custody, business, or a contested relationship—that look very different once all of the communications and context are considered.
STATUTORY OVERVIEW
Under La. R.S. § 14:40.2, stalking is the intentional and repeated following or harassing of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. It includes the repeated, uninvited presence of the offender at the other person’s home, workplace, or school, or any place, where that presence would cause a reasonable person alarm or emotional distress as a result of verbal, written, or behaviorally implied threats. The statute defines harassing as a repeated pattern of unwanted verbal communications or nonverbal behavior, and pattern of conduct as a series of acts over a period of time showing an intent to inflict a continuity of emotional distress; constitutionally protected activity is excluded.
ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION
The prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt:
- Intentional and repeated following or harassing (a pattern of conduct, not a single act)
- The conduct was directed at the victim
- The conduct would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress
ELEMENT 1: PATTERN OF CONDUCT
Repeated Acts Required
Stalking requires repetition—a series of acts over a period of time, however short, showing an intent to inflict a continuity of emotional distress. A single act does not establish a pattern, and constitutionally protected activity does not count toward one.
Strategic Challenges
- Single or isolated acts: One message, one encounter, or one call generally does not establish a pattern. Obtain a complete timeline of every alleged act and argue that the total falls short of a pattern.
- Intervening time gaps: A pattern requires recurrence. Acts widely separated in time, with nothing in between, may not constitute a continuous course of conduct. Obtain a timeline showing the intervals.
- Mixed or innocent contacts: If some alleged acts were accidental, work-related, or otherwise innocent, they may not count toward a pattern. Obtain the context of each act.
- Protected activity: The statute excludes constitutionally protected activity from the pattern. Identify and remove any protected conduct from the alleged course of conduct.
ELEMENT 2: HARASSING OR FOLLOWING—AND CONSENT
Consent and Invitation
The conduct must be unwanted. Where the other person invited, encouraged, or consented to contact, that conduct is not harassing, and consent to even some of the contacts can weaken or break the alleged pattern.
Strategic Challenges
- Express consent or invitation: Messages asking the defendant to call, meet, or respond, or the other person initiating contact, undercut the claim that contact was unwanted. Obtain all communications showing invitation or initiation.
- Implied consent: Accepting calls, responding to messages, and agreeing to meet can imply consent for those interactions. Obtain evidence of the other person’s responses.
- Withdrawal of consent: Where contact was welcome and later became unwanted, the timeline matters. Obtain communications showing when, if ever, contact was clearly told to stop.
- Legitimate purpose: Contact for a genuine reason—shared child custody, a business or legal matter, or required court communications—is not harassing. Obtain documentation of the legitimate context.
ELEMENT 3: THE REASONABLE-PERSON STANDARD
Objective Standard
The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. This is an objective standard—the complainant’s subjective reaction alone is not enough if a reasonable person in the same position would not have felt alarmed or distressed.
Strategic Challenge
- Unreasonable reaction: Where the complainant is shown to be unusually anxious, prone to exaggeration, or to overreact, a jury may find that a reasonable person would not have been alarmed. Cross-examine on any history of similar complaints, prior allegations, and the prior relationship between the parties.
REASONABLE DEFENSES
- No pattern of conduct—the conduct was a single or isolated act, or too dispersed in time
- The contact was consented to, invited, or initiated by the other person
- Legitimate purpose—custody, business, legal matters, or other genuine reasons for contact
- No reasonable alarm or distress—a reasonable person in the same position would not have been alarmed
- Protected activity that cannot count toward a pattern
- Mistaken identity or wrong person charged
- Constitutional violations—illegal search, false arrest, Miranda violations, or illegal surveillance
CASE LAW STRATEGY POINTS
Courts require a clear pattern of repeated conduct, and consent is a powerful defense—even as to a subset of the alleged contacts. Legitimate purposes, especially in family-law and business contexts, are viable defenses. Because the standard is objective, mere annoyance or an unreasonable reaction is not enough. Appellate courts reverse convictions where the pattern is unclear, where consent is shown, or where a legitimate purpose is established.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
If a defendant contacted someone twice, is that stalking?
Usually not. Stalking requires a pattern of repeated conduct over a period of time. Two contacts alone are generally insufficient unless they were extreme or were combined with other conduct such as following or showing up at the person’s home or workplace.
If the other person responded, does that mean they consented?
A response can imply consent to that exchange and can weaken the claim that contact was unwanted. A single response does not establish ongoing consent, but a clear, ongoing back-and-forth, or an invitation to make contact, is strong evidence that the contact was not harassing.
Can trying to reconcile with an ex be charged as stalking?
It depends on the pattern and the other person’s responses. Isolated attempts to reconcile are not stalking. A repeated course of unwanted contact after the other person has made clear that contact is not wanted may meet the statute.
Does stalking require a threat of violence?
Not necessarily. The statute reaches repeated following or harassing that would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. Harassing means a repeated pattern of unwanted communications or behavior; it is more than a single annoyance, but it does not always require an explicit threat.
Is the test how the complainant actually felt?
The standard is objective: would a reasonable person in the same situation feel alarmed or suffer emotional distress? A complainant’s unusually sensitive or exaggerated reaction, standing alone, may not satisfy the statute.
Full Statutory Text
§40.2. Stalking
A. Stalking is the intentional and repeated following or harassing of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. Stalking shall include but not be limited to the intentional and repeated uninvited presence of the perpetrator at another person’s home, workplace, school, or any place which would cause a reasonable person to be alarmed, or to suffer emotional distress as a result of verbal, written, or behaviorally implied threats of death, bodily injury, sexual assault, kidnapping, or any other statutory criminal act to himself or any member of his family or any person with whom he is acquainted.
B.(1)(a) On first conviction, whoever commits the crime of stalking shall be fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned for not less than thirty days nor more than one year. Any person convicted of stalking shall undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and imposition of sentence shall not be suspended unless the offender is placed on probation and participates in court-approved counseling. Enhanced penalties apply for repeat offenses and for aggravating circumstances, including where the victim is a child or where the conduct violates a protective order.
C. For purposes of this Section: “Harassing” means the repeated pattern of verbal communications or nonverbal behavior without invitation, including but not limited to telephone calls, electronic mail, messages sent through a third party, or letters or pictures. “Pattern of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing an intent to inflict a continuity of emotional distress upon the person; constitutionally protected activity is not included.
Statutory text via FindLaw (La. R.S. 14:40.2, current as of Jan. 1, 2023), condensed. Enhanced and repeat-offense penalty subsections are summarized rather than reproduced in full. Verify current text and penalties before relying on this summary.
HOW THE AMBEAU LAW FIRM CAN HELP
Stalking charges turn on the pattern element and on consent. We obtain complete communication records that show limited frequency or time gaps breaking the alleged pattern, and we gather evidence of invitation, response, or consent. We establish the legitimate purpose of any contact—custody, business, friendship, or legal matters—and we hold the state to the objective reasonable-person standard, cross-examining on any history of overreaction or exaggeration. Contact The Ambeau Law Firm for aggressive stalking defense.