1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
a. “Accompanying offense” means any public offense committed as part of the course of
conduct engaged in while committing the offense of stalking.
b. “Course of conduct” means repeatedly maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a
person without legitimate purpose, repeatedly utilizing a technological device to locate, listen
to, or watch a person without authorization or legitimate purpose, or repeatedly conveying
oral or written threats, threats implied by conduct, or a combination thereof, directed at or
toward a person.
c. “Immediate family member” means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any other person
who regularly resides in the household of a specific person, or who within the prior six months
regularly resided in the household of a specific person.
d. “Repeatedly” means on two or more occasions.
e. “Technological device” means any computer, cellular phone, smartphone, digital
camera, video camera, audio recording device, global positioning device, or other electronic
device that can be used for creating, storing, or transmitting information in the form of
electronic data.
2. A person commits stalking when all of the following occur:
a. The person purposefully engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person
that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened
or to fear that the person intends to cause bodily injury to, or the death of, that specific person
or a member of the specific person’s immediate family.
b. The person has knowledge or should have knowledge that a reasonable person would
feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened or fear that the person intends to cause
\n
Tue Dec 09 21:56:38 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 708 (40, 1)
§708.11, ASSAULT 12\n\nbodily injury to, or the death of, that specific person or a member of the specific person’s
immediate family by the course of conduct.
3. a. A person who commits stalking in violation of this section commits a class “C” felony
if any of the following apply:
(1) The person commits stalking while subject to restrictions contained in a criminal or
civil protective order or injunction, or any other court order which prohibits contact between
the person and the victim, or while subject to restrictions contained in a criminal or civil
protective order or injunction, or any other court order which prohibits contact between the
person and another person against whom the person has committed a public offense.
(2) The person commits stalking while in possession of a dangerous weapon, as defined
in section 702.7.
(3) The person commits stalking by directing a course of conduct at a specific person who
is under eighteen years of age.
(4) The person utilizes a technological device while committing stalking.
(5) For a third or subsequent offense.
b. A person who commits stalking in violation of this section commits a class “D” felony
if the offense is a second offense which is not included in paragraph “a”.
c. A person who commits stalking in violation of this section commits an aggravated
misdemeanor if the offense is a first offense which is not included in paragraph “a”.
4. Violations of this section and accompanying offenses shall be considered prior
offenses for the purpose of determining whether an offense is a second or subsequent
offense. A conviction for, deferred judgment for, or plea of guilty to a violation of this
section or an accompanying offense which occurred at any time prior to the date of
the violation charged shall be considered in determining that the violation charged is a
second or subsequent offense. Deferred judgments pursuant to section 907.3 for violations
of this section or accompanying offenses and convictions or the equivalent of deferred
judgments for violations in any other states under statutes substantially corresponding
to this section or accompanying offenses shall be counted as previous offenses. The
courts shall judicially notice the statutes of other states which define offenses substantially
equivalent to the offenses defined in this section and its accompanying offenses and can
therefore be considered corresponding statutes. Each previous violation of this section or an
accompanying offense on which conviction or deferral of judgment was entered prior to the
date of the violation charged shall be considered and counted as a separate previous offense.
In addition, however, accompanying offenses committed as part of the course of conduct
engaged in while committing the violation of stalking charged shall be considered prior
offenses for the purpose of that violation, even though the accompanying offenses occurred
at approximately the same time. An offense shall be considered a second or subsequent
offense regardless of whether it was committed upon the same person who was the victim
of any other previous offense.
5. Notwithstanding section 804.1, rule of criminal procedure 2.7, Iowa court rules, or any
other provision of law to the contrary, upon the filing of a complaint and a finding of probable
cause to believe an offense has been committed in violation of this section, or after the filing
of an indictment or information alleging a violation of this section, the court shall issue an
arrest warrant, rather than a citation or summons. A peace officer shall not issue a citation
in lieu of arrest for a violation of this section. Notwithstanding section 804.21 or any other
provision of law to the contrary, a person arrested for stalking shall be immediately taken into
custody and shall not be released pursuant to pretrial release guidelines, a bond schedule, or
any similar device, until after the initial appearance before a magistrate. In establishing the
conditions of release, the magistrate may consider the defendant’s prior criminal history, in
addition to the other factors provided in section 811.2.
6. For purposes of determining whether or not the person should register as a sex offender
pursuant to the provisions of chapter 692A, the fact finder shall make a determination as
provided in section 692A.126.
92 Acts, ch 1179, §1; 94 Acts, ch 1093, §4; 98 Acts, ch 1021, §4; 2002 Acts, ch 1119, §106;
2009 Acts, ch 119, §54; 2017 Acts, ch 83, §2, 3; 2023 Acts, ch 74, §11 – 13
Referred to in §9E.2, 664A.2, 692.22, 692A.102, 692A.126, 805.1, 811.1, 901C.3, 911.2B\n\nTue Dec 09 21:56:38 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 708 (40, 1)
13 ASSAULT, §708.15
\n
Notes of Decisions
State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 82× “See Iowa Code § 708.11 (4) (2009). 4 more occasions “shall be separate from those alleged in the Minutes of Testimony in [Lindell’s prior conviction].”
State v. Beecher, 616 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 82× “Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(b)(1) (1999). The State charged Beecher under the amended statute, and Beecher has made no assertion that he was improperly charged.”
State v. Evans, 671 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2003).
· cites it 6× “See Iowa Code §§ 708.11 , 708.7 (2001). Whereas the stalking charge drew upon the entire course of the defendant’s conduct which culminated with Evans’ appearance at Arnold’s house on October 12, the three harassment charges were focused upon three discrete incidents, as…”
State v. Helmers, 753 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 2008).
· cites it 8× “See Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(6)(1) (2005). Helmers filed several motions to exclude evidence and asked for his trial to be bifurcated.”
State v. Neuzil, 589 N.W.2d 708 (Iowa 1999).
· cites it 14× “See Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(b)(l) (1997). Because we conclude the crime charged involves general, not specific, intent, we find the court properly instructed the jury and, accordingly, find no merit in defendant’s ineffectiveness claim.”
State of Iowa v. Valentin Velez, 829 N.W.2d 572 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 4× “, Iowa Code § 708.11 (b) (defining a “course of conduct” for the offense of stalking).”
State v. Limbrecht, 600 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 1999).
· cites it 18× “Iowa Code § 708.11 (2); State v. Bellows, 596 N.”
State v. Greene, 709 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2006).
· cites it 8× “” This evidence, as well as other evidence not specifically set out in this opinion, easily supports a finding that the defendant was guilty of the general crime of stalking under Iowa Code section 708.11(2). The key issue is whether these shards, in view of the way they were…”
State of Iowa v. Darrell Allen Showens, 845 N.W.2d 436 (Iowa 2014).
· cites it 2× “” Iowa Code § 708.11 (2)(a). 9 Whether a person can successfully assert self-defense to a criminal charge depends on what “a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss.”
State v. Bellows, 596 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 1999).
· cites it 17× “Iowa Code § 708.11 (2). The district court found these elements were proven.”
State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227 (Iowa 2001).
· cites it 2× “NOTES [1] For example, Iowa Code section 708.11(2)(a), the stalking statute, proscribes "purposefully engag[ing] in a course of conduct" that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury, rather than using the "intended to place another in fear" language found in the…”
State v. Reynolds, 670 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 2003).
· cites it 2× “2d 316, 319 (Iowa 1999) (holding defendant’s acts in driving by the victim’s home satisfied “physical proximity” requirement of Iowa’s stalking statute, Iowa Code section 708.11(2)). So long as the defendant’s physical proximity to Cottrell was intended by him to threaten,…”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(1) — 2 cases
State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (4) (2009). 4 more occasions “shall be separate from those alleged in the Minutes of Testimony in [Lindell’s prior conviction].”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(1)(6) — 2 cases
State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (4) (2009). 4 more occasions “shall be separate from those alleged in the Minutes of Testimony in [Lindell’s prior conviction].”
State v. Helmers, 753 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 2008).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(6)(1) (2005). Helmers filed several motions to exclude evidence and asked for his trial to be bifurcated.”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(1)(b) — 5 cases
State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (4) (2009). 4 more occasions “shall be separate from those alleged in the Minutes of Testimony in [Lindell’s prior conviction].”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(1)(b)(1) — 1 case
State v. Limbrecht, 600 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 1999).
“Iowa Code § 708.11 (2); State v. Bellows, 596 N.”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(1)(d) — 4 cases
State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (4) (2009). 4 more occasions “shall be separate from those alleged in the Minutes of Testimony in [Lindell’s prior conviction].”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(2) — 17 cases
State v. Beecher, 616 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2000).
“Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(b)(1) (1999). The State charged Beecher under the amended statute, and Beecher has made no assertion that he was improperly charged.”
State v. Evans, 671 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2003).
“See Iowa Code §§ 708.11 , 708.7 (2001). Whereas the stalking charge drew upon the entire course of the defendant’s conduct which culminated with Evans’ appearance at Arnold’s house on October 12, the three harassment charges were focused upon three discrete incidents, as…”
State v. Reynolds, 670 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 2003).
“2d 316, 319 (Iowa 1999) (holding defendant’s acts in driving by the victim’s home satisfied “physical proximity” requirement of Iowa’s stalking statute, Iowa Code section 708.11(2)). So long as the defendant’s physical proximity to Cottrell was intended by him to threaten,…”
State v. Limbrecht, 600 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 1999).
“Iowa Code § 708.11 (2); State v. Bellows, 596 N.”
State v. Greene, 709 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2006).
“” This evidence, as well as other evidence not specifically set out in this opinion, easily supports a finding that the defendant was guilty of the general crime of stalking under Iowa Code section 708.11(2). The key issue is whether these shards, in view of the way they were…”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227 (Iowa 2001).
“NOTES [1] For example, Iowa Code section 708.11(2)(a), the stalking statute, proscribes "purposefully engag[ing] in a course of conduct" that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury, rather than using the "intended to place another in fear" language found in the…”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3) — 4 cases
State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (4) (2009). 4 more occasions “shall be separate from those alleged in the Minutes of Testimony in [Lindell’s prior conviction].”
State v. Greene, 709 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2006).
“” This evidence, as well as other evidence not specifically set out in this opinion, easily supports a finding that the defendant was guilty of the general crime of stalking under Iowa Code section 708.11(2). The key issue is whether these shards, in view of the way they were…”
State v. Bellows, 596 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 1999).
“Iowa Code § 708.11 (2). The district court found these elements were proven.”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(5)(1) — 1 case
State v. Helmers, 753 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 2008).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(6)(1) (2005). Helmers filed several motions to exclude evidence and asked for his trial to be bifurcated.”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(6)(1) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (4) (2009). 4 more occasions “shall be separate from those alleged in the Minutes of Testimony in [Lindell’s prior conviction].”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(6)(2) — 1 case
State v. Greene, 709 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2006).
“” This evidence, as well as other evidence not specifically set out in this opinion, easily supports a finding that the defendant was guilty of the general crime of stalking under Iowa Code section 708.11(2). The key issue is whether these shards, in view of the way they were…”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(a)(1) — 3 cases
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(a)(1)(2024) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(a)(4) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Beecher, 616 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2000).
“Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(b)(1) (1999). The State charged Beecher under the amended statute, and Beecher has made no assertion that he was improperly charged.”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(b)(1) — 9 cases
State v. Beecher, 616 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2000).
“Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(b)(1) (1999). The State charged Beecher under the amended statute, and Beecher has made no assertion that he was improperly charged.”
State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (4) (2009). 4 more occasions “shall be separate from those alleged in the Minutes of Testimony in [Lindell’s prior conviction].”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(b)(2) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(b)(l) — 4 cases
State v. Beecher, 616 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2000).
“Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(b)(1) (1999). The State charged Beecher under the amended statute, and Beecher has made no assertion that he was improperly charged.”
State v. Bellows, 596 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 1999).
“Iowa Code § 708.11 (2). The district court found these elements were proven.”
State v. Neuzil, 589 N.W.2d 708 (Iowa 1999).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(b)(l) (1997). Because we conclude the crime charged involves general, not specific, intent, we find the court properly instructed the jury and, accordingly, find no merit in defendant’s ineffectiveness claim.”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(3)(c) — 6 cases
State v. Greene, 709 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2006).
“” This evidence, as well as other evidence not specifically set out in this opinion, easily supports a finding that the defendant was guilty of the general crime of stalking under Iowa Code section 708.11(2). The key issue is whether these shards, in view of the way they were…”
State v. Helmers, 753 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 2008).
“See Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(6)(1) (2005). Helmers filed several motions to exclude evidence and asked for his trial to be bifurcated.”
— Iowa Code § 708.11(b)(2) — 1 case
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.