Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 365.16 (2025)

Obscene or harassing telephone calls.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

365.16 Obscene or harassing telephone calls.—

(1) Whoever:

(a) Makes a telephone call to a location at which the person receiving the call has a reasonable expectation of privacy; during such call makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, vulgar, or indecent; and by such call or such language intends to offend, annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number;

(b) Makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his or her identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number;

(c) Makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

(d) Makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number,

is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) Whoever knowingly permits any telephone under his or her control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Each telephone directory hereafter published for distribution to the members of the general public shall contain a notice which explains this law; such notice shall be printed in type which is no smaller than the smallest type on the same page and shall be preceded by the word “warning.” The provisions of this section shall not apply to directories solely for business advertising purposes, commonly known as classified directories.

(4) Each telephone company in this state shall cooperate with the law enforcement agencies of this state in using its facilities and personnel to detect and prevent violations of this section.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to telephone calls made in good faith in the ordinary course of business or commerce.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 63-51; s. 1, ch. 69-25; s. 276, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 1, 2, ch. 79-270; ss. 2, 4, ch. 80-275; s. 550, ch. 95-148.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 365.16

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§365.16(2)HARASSING COMMUNICATIONPERMIT OBSCENE OR HARASSING PHONE CALLSM · 2nd

§365.16(1a)OBSCENE COMMUNICATIONMAKE PHONE CALL OBSCENE/VULGAR COMMUNICATIONM · 2nd

§365.16(1b)HARASSING COMMUNICATIONMAKE PHONE CALL FAIL DISCLOSE INTENT HARASSM · 2nd

§365.16(1c)HARASSING COMMUNICATIONCAUSE ANOTHERS PHONE TO RING REPEATEDLYM · 2nd

§365.16(1d)HARASSING COMMUNICATIONMAKE REPEATED PHONE CALLS TO HARASS PERSONM · 2nd

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1977–2015 · leading case: State v. Elder, 382 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Elder, 382 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1980). · cites it 26× “[4] The statute is carefully worded as to the specific conduct proscribed and is carefully limited with preconditions so as not to infringe on legitimate free speech rights.”

State v. Keaton, 371 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979). · cites it 25× “NOTES [1] The portions of section 365.16, Florida Statutes (1977), which are relevant to this appeal are as follows: Obscene or harassing telephone calls.”

Avrich v. State, 936 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). · cites it 22× “§ 365.16(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004)(emphasis added).”

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). · cites it 2× “However, that same conduct is punishable as a misdemeanor under Florida law, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.16 (Supp. 1977), and there can be little doubt that if that same "punishment" had been inflicted by an officer of the state courts for violation of § 365.”

Gilbreath v. State, 650 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 12× “Appellant argues that lack of consent is a specific constitutional requirement for a *12 statute such as § 365.16. However, the Florida Supreme Court stated in Keaton that a statute worded as the amended statute is would assume an unwilling listener.”

Cohen v. State, 171 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). · cites it 7× “The affidavit specifically referenced the misdemeanor case number and incorporated the allegations of the misdemeanor information (as set forth above) specifically charging a violation of section 365.16(l)(a). 1 In May 2014, the trial court conducted a probation violation…”

Stoddard v. Wohlfahrt, 573 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). · cites it 5× “The court allowed Stoddard to file a second amended claim, and this time Stoddard alleged, as a basis for damages under count two, the violation of section 365.16, Florida Statutes (1987). Section 365.”

Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 365.16(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1977). The decision in Keaton in turn was based on the earlier case of Spears v.”

In Re Brown, 748 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1999). · cites it 3× “Brown of harassing communications in violation of Section 365.16, Florida Statutes. Ms. Brown was the former daughter-in-law of Judge Brown, and her arrest and the resulting charges were based upon an affidavit submitted by Robert E.”

Seybel v. State, 693 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · cites it 2× “Appellant claims that he should have been prosecuted under the misdemeanor statute prohibiting harassing telephone calls, section 365.16, rather than under the felony statute for aggravated stalking, section 784.”

Inquiry Concerning A Judge, No. 98-222, re Brown, 748 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1999). · cites it 3× “Brown of harassing communications in violation of Section 365.16, Florida Statutes. Ms. Brown was the former daughter-in-law of Judge Brown, and her arrest and the resulting charges were based upon an affidavit submitted by Robert E.”

H.L.D. v. State, 83 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). “§ 365.16(l)(b), (d), Fla. Stat. (2008). .”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— 365.16(1) — 1 case

Durie v. State, 901 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

— 365.16(1)(a) — 4 cases

State v. Keaton, 371 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979). “NOTES [1] The portions of section 365.16, Florida Statutes (1977), which are relevant to this appeal are as follows: Obscene or harassing telephone calls.”

Gilbreath v. State, 650 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1995). “Appellant argues that lack of consent is a specific constitutional requirement for a *12 statute such as § 365.16. However, the Florida Supreme Court stated in Keaton that a statute worded as the amended statute is would assume an unwilling listener.”

State v. Elder, 382 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1980). “[4] The statute is carefully worded as to the specific conduct proscribed and is carefully limited with preconditions so as not to infringe on legitimate free speech rights.”

Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1990). “§ 365.16(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1977). The decision in Keaton in turn was based on the earlier case of Spears v.”

— 365.16(1)(b) — 2 cases

Stoddard v. Wohlfahrt, 573 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). “The court allowed Stoddard to file a second amended claim, and this time Stoddard alleged, as a basis for damages under count two, the violation of section 365.16, Florida Statutes (1987). Section 365.”

— 365.16(1)(c) — 1 case

— 365.16(2) — 2 cases

State v. Firtell, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 169 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1986).

State v. Firtell, 13 Fla. Supp. 2d 65 (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. 1985).

— 365.16(l)(a) — 3 cases

Avrich v. State, 936 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “§ 365.16(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004)(emphasis added).”

Cohen v. State, 171 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “The affidavit specifically referenced the misdemeanor case number and incorporated the allegations of the misdemeanor information (as set forth above) specifically charging a violation of section 365.16(l)(a). 1 In May 2014, the trial court conducted a probation violation…”

Gilbreath v. State, 629 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

— 365.16(l)(b) — 2 cases

Avrich v. State, 936 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “§ 365.16(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004)(emphasis added).”

H.L.D. v. State, 83 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). “§ 365.16(l)(b), (d), Fla. Stat. (2008). .”

— 365.16(l)(b)(c) — 1 case

Weiner v. State, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 61 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990).

— 365.16(l)(c) — 1 case

— 365.16(l)(d) — 2 cases

Durie v. State, 901 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Florida Bar v. Helinger, 620 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1993).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.