Stalking Allegations

Stalking is the campus charge most often brought on the least evidence, because the word carries so much weight that nobody stops to check the elements.

It has elements, and they are specific. A course of conduct — meaning more than one act — directed at a specific person, that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or the safety of others, or to suffer substantial emotional distress. Every one of those is contestable, and in most campus cases at least one of them is missing.

Break the definition apart, because that is the defense

A course of conduct. Two messages in one evening is not a course of conduct in most formulations; a repeated pattern over time is. Ask which specific acts, on which specific dates, are said to constitute the course. Vague allegations survive only where nobody insists they be specified.

Directed at the person. Posting on your own account, appearing in a public place you have an independent reason to be in, attending a class you are enrolled in, or continuing to use a shared space is not conduct directed at anyone. Institutions blur this constantly.

A reasonable person standard. Not this person’s subjective reaction — a reasonable person in their circumstances. That is an objective test, and it is a real limit.

Fear or substantial emotional distress. “Substantial” is doing work. Discomfort, annoyance and awkwardness are not the standard, however sincerely they were felt.

Requiring the institution to walk through each element, in writing, against named acts and dates, is frequently the most productive thing done in the entire case.

How ordinary conduct gets charged as stalking

The recurring fact patterns are recognizable and mostly innocent.

The breakup. Repeated attempts to talk, apologize or get an explanation after a relationship ends. Persistent, often unwise, and not automatically stalking — particularly where no one had asked you to stop.

The unanswered thread. Several messages sent without reply, which look like a pattern when counted and like one anxious evening when read.

Social media. Viewing a profile, liking old posts, following mutual friends. Systems record this and complainants produce it as a log, which makes ordinary behavior look forensic.

The small campus. Shared classes, one dining hall, one gym, one library, one route between them. Repeated proximity is a feature of the place, not evidence of intent.

The group chat. Being present in a shared space, discussed by others, or tagged in something you did not post.

The warning is the pivot point

Conduct before anyone asked you to stop and conduct after are treated very differently. In most cases the first meaningful line is a no-contact order or an explicit request to cease.

What happens after that line is what decides the case. Which is why the single most important thing to do on receiving a no-contact order is to read it word for word and obey it literally — including its reach into third-party contact and social media — and to self-report any accidental encounter in writing the same day.

Students survive the original allegation and are removed for the breach far more often than the reverse.

The evidence is yours, and it cuts both ways

• Preserve entire threads, not screenshots of parts. Complainants submit excerpts; panels see excerpts unless someone provides the rest.
• Context defeats counting. A list of message timestamps is designed to look relentless. The same exchange read whole is frequently a conversation both people were having.
• Metadata establishes sequence — who contacted whom first, whether replies came, whether contact was mutual right up to the complaint.
• Mutual contact matters enormously. Where the complainant was messaging back throughout, the fear element becomes very hard to establish.
• Do not delete anything. Deletion is discoverable, is treated as consciousness of guilt, and turns a contestable case into a lost one.

Stalking, dating violence and domestic violence are separate charges

They are frequently charged together out of one set of facts, and each has its own elements. Dating violence requires a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature, assessed by length, type and frequency of interaction. Domestic violence requires a spousal, cohabitant, shared-child or similar relationship.

Stalking requires none of that — there need be no relationship at all — but it does require the course of conduct and the reasonable-person effect. Charging all three usually means none was analyzed, and insisting that each be proved separately is worth doing.

Where there is a criminal case or an injunction

Stalking is a crime in every state and is also the basis for civil injunctions. Those proceed on their own clocks, and nothing said in a campus proceeding is privileged.

Where charges or an injunction are possible, criminal counsel comes first and the campus response is built around that advice. An injunction hearing is often the first hearing to happen; testimony there is transcribed and used everywhere else.

Where these cases are won

• No course of conduct — the acts identified are too few or too isolated.
• Not directed at the complainant — the conduct had an independent purpose.
• The objective standard is not met on the facts actually alleged.
• The record shows mutual, ongoing contact up to the complaint.
• Nothing happened after the warning, which separates the case in two.
• Procedural failure — notice that never stated the specific acts, evidence withheld, named witnesses not interviewed, a decision-maker who was not neutral.

Common questions

Can I be charged for messages I sent before any warning?

They can be included in the alleged course of conduct. Conduct before a warning and conduct after are weighed very differently, and the distinction is worth pressing.

We were messaging each other the whole time. Does that help?

Substantially. Ongoing mutual contact makes the fear and distress elements difficult to establish, and the full thread is what proves it.

I only looked at their profile. Is that stalking?

Viewing is not usually a course of conduct directed at a person. Whether a policy reaches it depends on its wording, which is worth reading closely.

What if we have a class together?

Raise it the day any order arrives, before the schedule hardens. Attending a class you are enrolled in is not conduct directed at anyone, but an order that does not carve it out puts you in an impossible position.

Will this appear on my transcript?

Separations are notated in many schemes and some states require it. Ask what words appear and what removal requires, before the sanction is finalized.