18 U.S.C. 2261A criminalizes specified stalking conduct with a federal connection. It covers certain interstate travel and certain uses of mail, electronic communications, or other interstate facilities. A disturbing message is not automatically a federal conviction: prosecutors must establish the required intent, course of conduct, and statutory harm or fear. [1]
What makes the conduct criminal
The law addresses conduct intended to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place a person under surveillance with the specified intent. Its provisions also describe fear of death or serious bodily injury and substantial emotional distress. The applicable paragraph matters, as do constitutional protections for speech.
The penalty cross-reference generally starts with a maximum of five years, with higher exposure for serious injury, weapons-related circumstances, or death. Certain circumstances can impose a minimum sentence. A maximum is not the sentence every defendant receives. [2]
Preserve evidence and assess the response
Keep the original messages, usernames, timestamps, account links, and a chronological record of repeated contacts. Explain connections among accounts rather than presenting isolated screenshots without context. If there is immediate danger, seek emergency assistance; preserving evidence should not delay getting to safety.
Federal prosecution, a state criminal case, and a protective-order proceeding have different requirements. Report accurate facts without assuming that an interstate internet platform alone proves all federal elements. A person accused of stalking should follow release conditions and protective orders, avoid indirect contact through friends, and have counsel evaluate the communications and jurisdictional evidence.
An evidence chronology should show the pattern
A single screenshot can omit facts essential to a stalking assessment. A chronology should identify the first unwanted contact, requests to stop, later contacts through new accounts, in-person approaches, threats, and the resulting fear or disruption. Preserve originals when possible so dates and account information can be examined. Do not manufacture a response to make the pattern appear clearer.
For example, repeated messages combined with tracking a person’s whereabouts can present different evidence from a one-time angry comment. Whether either situation satisfies section 2261A still depends on the statutory intent, conduct, harm, and jurisdiction requirements.
If a protective order exists, keep its exact terms and proof of service. A platform’s decision to remove an account is useful context but does not establish criminal guilt. Similarly, police declining immediate arrest does not necessarily mean no protective remedy exists. A lawyer or victim-assistance professional can help identify the appropriate proceeding and preserve evidence without unnecessary public disclosure.
Publication of personal information can raise the federal doxing statute as a separate issue. After arrest, bail limits require another analysis.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.