HB 1615 revises Florida’s stalking and harassment laws and makes related changes to arrest-warrant and supervision statutes. The bill updates the definitions of “harass,” “course of conduct,” and “cyberstalk” in s. 784.048, including language that expressly covers conduct carried out through third parties and through devices such as cameras and drones, and clarifies that cyberstalking can include unauthorized access to online accounts or internet-connected home systems. It also creates a new aggravated stalking offense for willfully or maliciously harassing or cyberstalking specified justice system personnel when the conduct arises out of or is within the scope of their official duties.
The bill further amends s. 901.02 to authorize judges to issue arrest warrants electronically under specified conditions and makes technical changes to warrant procedures for misdemeanor complaints, including cases involving DUI, assault, battery, stalking, or situations where the defendant may pose a danger. It also updates cross-references in the Criminal Punishment Code, probation and community control revocation provisions, and school bullying/harassment law so those statutes align with the revised stalking definitions and offense numbering. The bill is set to take effect October 1, 2025, but it died in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee.
The overall policy impact is to broaden and modernize Florida’s stalking framework, increase penalties for stalking-related conduct directed at justice system personnel, and make it easier in some circumstances for courts to issue arrest warrants electronically. It also adjusts sentencing and supervision statutes so aggravated stalking remains a qualifying offense for enhanced punishment and revocation consequences, while preserving references used in religious/ethnic harassment and school bullying provisions.
Sentiment around the bill appears generally supportive of stronger protections against stalking, harassment, and intimidation, especially for public-facing justice system personnel and victims already under court protection. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor-level debate in the available record, but the bill’s failure in subcommittee indicates it did not advance far enough to secure committee approval.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the expanded definitions and the new aggravated stalking offense, particularly the inclusion of third-party conduct, surveillance tools like drones and cameras, and electronic access to home systems. Any concerns would likely involve whether the bill’s language is sufficiently precise, whether it could sweep in protected activity, and how far criminal penalties should extend for conduct directed at justice system personnel.
HB 1615 amends Florida Statutes ss. 784.048, 901.02, 921.0022, 948.06, 948.062, 784.0493, and 1006.147. It expands stalking-related definitions, adds a third-degree felony aggravated stalking offense for harassment or cyberstalking of specified justice system personnel, authorizes electronic signatures on arrest warrants under specified conditions, and updates sentencing, probation, and school harassment cross-references to conform to the revised stalking provisions. The bill also preserves related references in religious/ethnic harassment law and takes effect October 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have been framed as a public-safety and victim-protection measure, with an emphasis on addressing stalking, cyberstalking, and harassment of justice system personnel. In the absence of committee transcripts or votes, there is no detailed record of opposition or support, but the bill’s death in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee suggests it did not receive enough committee backing to advance.
Likely areas of contention include the scope of the expanded stalking and cyberstalking definitions, especially the inclusion of third-party conduct, cameras, drones, and access to internet-connected home systems. Another possible point of debate is the new aggravated stalking offense targeting justice system personnel, which raises questions about balancing enhanced protection for officials against concerns about overcriminalization or vagueness. The electronic warrant provisions may also have prompted procedural or due-process questions, though no transcript is available to confirm specific objections.