365.16
Obscene or harassing telephone calls.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1977–2015 · leading case: State v. Elder
State v. Elder (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.”
State v. Keaton (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.”
Avrich v. State (2006)
“§ 365.16(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004)(emphasis added).”
Ingraham v. Wright (1977)
“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 (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.”
Cohen v. State (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…”
Stoddard v. Wohlfahrt (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.”
Stall v. State (1990)
“§ 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 (1999)
“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 (1997)
“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 (1999)
“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 (2011)
“§ 365.16(l)(b), (d), Fla. Stat. (2008). .”
— 365.16(1) — 1 case
Durie v. State (2005)
— 365.16(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Keaton (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 (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 (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 (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
State v. Elder (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.”
Stoddard v. Wohlfahrt (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
State v. Elder (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.”
— 365.16(2) — 2 cases
State v. Firtell (1986)
State v. Firtell (1985)
— 365.16(l)(a) — 3 cases
Avrich v. State (2006)
“§ 365.16(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004)(emphasis added).”
Cohen v. State (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 (1993)
— 365.16(l)(b) — 2 cases
Avrich v. State (2006)
“§ 365.16(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004)(emphasis added).”
H.L.D. v. State (2011)
“§ 365.16(l)(b), (d), Fla. Stat. (2008). .”
— 365.16(l)(b)(c) — 1 case
Weiner v. State (1990)
— 365.16(l)(c) — 1 case
Cohen v. State (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…”
— 365.16(l)(d) — 2 cases
Durie v. State (2005)
Florida Bar v. Helinger (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.