Long Beach Stalking Defense Lawyer

The charge

What Penal Code 646.9 requires

Penal Code 646.9 requires three things together. A wilful and malicious course of conduct: either repeatedly following, or harassing, which the statute defines as a knowing and wilful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorises them and serves no legitimate purpose. A credible threat, which may be made verbally, in writing, or by electronic communication, or implied by a pattern of conduct. And an intent to place the person in reasonable fear for their safety or that of their immediate family.

The statute also defines “course of conduct” as a series of acts over a period of time, however short, showing a continuity of purpose, and expressly excludes constitutionally protected activity. Each of those definitions is a place a case can fail: contact that had a legitimate purpose, communications that contained no threat and implied none, a single incident rather than a course of conduct, or fear that was not reasonable.

Stalking is a wobbler. As a misdemeanor it carries up to a year in county jail; as a felony it carries a term in state prison, with higher terms where a restraining order was in effect or the defendant has a prior stalking conviction.

Sources: Penal Code 646.9(a) — the elements; (e)–(g) — harassment, course of conduct, and credible threat defined.

The defense

Where stalking cases fall apart

No credible threat is the most common answer. Persistent, unwanted, even distressing contact is not stalking without a threat, express or implied by the pattern, and intent to cause fear for safety. Messages that are pleading, angry, or obsessive but contain nothing threatening often fail this element.

Legitimate purpose is the second. Contact about shared children, a business matter, a tenancy, a debt, or property does not serve “no legitimate purpose,” even where it is unwelcome and frequent. Custody disputes generate a large share of these cases, and the family court record often explains the contact.

Then: no course of conduct, where the incidents are isolated rather than continuous; unreasonable fear, judged objectively; mistaken identity, which is common where accounts are anonymous or shared; fabrication or exaggeration, particularly where there is a parallel family or civil case; and constitutionally protected speech, which the statute excludes.

The office

How the Law Offices of Patrick S. Aguirre defends stalking cases

The office has defended criminal cases in Long Beach and across Los Angeles County for nearly three decades. Stalking cases are defended element by element, from the complete communication record rather than the excerpt in the report, and alongside whatever family or civil proceeding is generating them, because the two affect each other directly.

Nothing here predicts an outcome. The firm has offices in Long Beach and Downey and speaks Spanish.