Neighbors frequently have misunderstandings and squabbles, and they very often have opinions on what stalking means. For answers, we should go to Florida law.

A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree. §784.048(2), Florida Statutes.

□ A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree. §784.048(3), Florida Statutes.
□ “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
□ “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.
□ “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat has the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution.
□ “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose. §784.048(1)(a-d), Florida Statutes.
STANDING
□ A person who is the victim of stalking or the parent or legal guardian of a minor child who is living at home who seeks an injunction for protection against stalking on behalf of the minor child has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an injunction for protection against stalking. §784.0485(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

If you are involved in a dispute that involves criminal behavior, consider calling Alex Truluck. Alexander Truluck focuses his practice as a criminal defense attorney in Clearwater, Palm Harbor, Largo, Dunedin and the Tampa Bay area.

For more information, visit our website at http://www.criminallawyerclearwaterflorida.com
or call (727) 799-3550.

We are all familiar with the effect of DNA evidence in the court system. Movies and TV shows are featuring it all the time. Countless people have been released from prison when DNA evidence was introduce to prove their innocence.

For the layman, the premise of using DNA evidence is fail-safe. Our DNA is one of a limited number of biological signatures—another being our fingerprints. Considering that on average we shed 30,000 and 40,000 skin cells per hour, it is overwhelmingly possible for a suspect to leave a bio-trail at the scene of a crime that makes identifying him or her remarkably easy.

However, that explanation is also the bedrock of the opposing viewpoint held by professionals—that DNA evidence is easily transferable. Especially in instances where the DNA evidence is culled from skin cells, then the ability of skin cells to move easily can be a limiting factor to the reliability of the technique. Take this illuminating scenario for example. The murder of a multimillionaire was pinned on a homeless man. Unfortunately, this was a false allegation. The paramedics that had aided the homeless man earlier in the night also dutifully went to the murder scene. The cells of the homeless man had inadvertently tagged along for a road trip on the uniforms of the paramedics to the murder scene. This is one of the rising instances where the consequences of using DNA evidence have had negative impacts on the criminal justice system.

Touch DNA and how it affects the Criminal Justice System

The term to describe the ability of skin cells to implant themselves on objects is Touch DNA. The aging conception that DNA stays in one place is not holding up against growing evidence. In fact, according to a study published in the International Journal of Legal Medicine, it is possible for individual A to shake individual B, then when individual A touches an object afterward, individual A deposits the skin cells of individual B (acquired during the shake) rather than those of individual A on the object. According to another study in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, this type of transference could be the sole reason why individual B may be adjudged the main contributor to the DNA pool found on the object, despite never touching the object. The explanation for this phenomenon is that individuals shed skin cells at varying rates. A person who sheds more skin cells with invariably has a stronger DNA presence after analysis in a laboratory.

The New Dimension of DNA Evidence in Criminal Defense

For a while, prosecutors gleaned cheerfully after the discovery of DNA evidence. Going forward, this initial enthusiasm will grow thinner as more research defines the boundaries of the credibility of DNA evidence. For now though, the seed of skepticism has been sown. Touch DNA no longer primarily means clean-cut cases. DNA evidence is not always right, and in criminal defense that could be the difference between an acquittal and incarceration.

Alexander Truluck focuses his practice as a criminal defense attorney in Clearwater, Palm Harbor, Largo, Dunedin and the Tampa Bay area.

For more information, visit our website at http://www.criminallawyerclearwaterflorida.com
or call (727) 799-3550.