New Jersey Federal Threats, Cyberstalking & Assault on a Federal Officer Lawyer

A single text message, social media post or voicemail can lead to a federal criminal charge. Because most electronic communications cross state lines, federal prosecutors can charge threats and online harassment that would otherwise be handled in a New Jersey municipal or Superior Court. The FBI, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Capitol Police all investigate threats, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey regularly brings cases involving threats to public officials, schools, businesses and former partners.

These cases are often about words, context and intent. Many people charged with federal threats made a statement in anger, as a joke or as hyperbole, never intending to harm anyone. A New Jersey federal threats lawyer can examine the full context of the communication and the government’s proof of your state of mind, and fight for a result that protects your freedom and your future.

Interstate Threats – 18 U.S.C. § 875

Section 875 makes it a federal crime to transmit a threat in interstate or foreign commerce. Because phone calls, texts, emails and social media posts travel through interstate networks, this element is usually easy for the government to prove. The statute has several parts:

• § 875(a) – a ransom or reward demand for the release of a kidnapped person: up to 20 years
• § 875(b) – a threat to kidnap or injure made with intent to extort money or something of value: up to 20 years
• § 875(c) – any threat to kidnap or injure another person: up to 5 years
• § 875(d) – a threat to injure property or reputation, or to accuse someone of a crime, made with intent to extort: up to 2 years

Section 875(c) is the most commonly charged. It covers threats made to the target directly and threats posted publicly about someone else.

Threats Against Federal Officials – 18 U.S.C. §§ 115, 871 and 876

Federal law gives special protection to people who work for the government. Under 18 U.S.C. § 115, threatening to assault, kidnap or murder a federal official, judge or law enforcement officer, or a member of their family, with intent to impede or retaliate against them for their official duties is a federal crime. A threatened assault carries up to six years in prison, and a threat to kidnap or murder carries up to 10 years.

Threats against the President, Vice President and certain successors are charged under 18 U.S.C. § 871 and carry up to five years. Threats sent through the mail are charged under 18 U.S.C. § 876, which carries up to five years, or up to 10 years if the letter is addressed to a federal judge, federal law enforcement officer or other covered official.

Cyberstalking – 18 U.S.C. § 2261A

The federal stalking statute makes it a crime to use the mail, the internet, a phone or any other interactive computer service or electronic communication system to engage in a course of conduct, with intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate or place under surveillance another person, that either places the person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to themselves, a family member, a spouse or intimate partner, or a pet, or causes, attempts to cause or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress.

A “course of conduct” means two or more acts showing a continuity of purpose. Federal cyberstalking cases often grow out of breakups and family disputes and involve repeated messages, fake social media accounts, posting private images, tracking someone’s location or contacting their employer.

Penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 2261(b) depend on the harm involved: up to five years in most cases, up to 10 years if serious bodily injury results or a dangerous weapon is used, up to 20 years for permanent disfigurement or life-threatening injury, and up to life if the victim dies. Federal cyberstalking charges are often brought alongside state charges or a restraining order, so coordinating the defense in both courts is important. See our page on domestic violence for the state side of these cases.

Hoaxes, False Information and “Swatting” – 18 U.S.C. § 1038

Making a false report of a bomb, shooting or other dangerous situation, including fake calls to police that send a SWAT team to someone’s home, can be charged as a federal hoax under 18 U.S.C. § 1038. The basic offense carries up to five years. If serious bodily injury results, the maximum rises to 20 years, and if death results, to life. Bomb threats and school threats are also frequently charged under 18 U.S.C. § 844(e), which carries up to 10 years.

Assaulting or Resisting a Federal Officer – 18 U.S.C. § 111

Section 111 makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere with a federal officer or employee while he or she is performing official duties. This includes federal agents, TSA officers, postal workers, Veterans Affairs staff, federal correctional officers and people assisting them. Cases commonly arise at airports such as Newark Liberty, at federal buildings and courthouses, at VA medical centers, at military installations such as Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst and during federal arrests and immigration enforcement.

The penalties depend on the conduct:

• Simple assault – a misdemeanor carrying up to one year
• Physical contact or intent to commit another felony – up to eight years
• Use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, or bodily injury – up to 20 years

Video, body camera footage and witness accounts often decide these cases, including whether force was actually used and whether the person understood the officer was performing federal duties.

What the Government Must Prove: True Threats and Intent

The First Amendment protects a great deal of offensive, angry and disturbing speech. Only “true threats,” meaning serious expressions of intent to commit unlawful violence against a particular person or group, can be prosecuted. Two Supreme Court decisions shape every threats case:

• In Elonis v. United States (2015), the Court held that a conviction under § 875(c) cannot rest only on how a reasonable person would interpret the words. The government must prove something about the defendant’s own mental state.
• In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Court held that the First Amendment requires at least recklessness, meaning the speaker consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the communication would be viewed as threatening violence.

These rulings give the defense important ground to stand on when a statement was sarcastic, political, artistic, conditional or plainly exaggerated.

Defenses to Federal Threat and Stalking Charges

Depending on the facts, defenses may include:

• No true threat – the statement was hyperbole, a joke, political speech, lyrics or a conditional statement, not a serious expression of intent to commit violence
• Lack of the required mental state – you did not intend the words as a threat and did not consciously disregard the risk that they would be seen that way
• Identity – someone else created the account, sent the message or used your device
• Context – the full conversation, including messages the government left out, changes the meaning
• No course of conduct – in a stalking case, the acts do not show a continuity of purpose or did not cause the required fear or distress
• Lack of knowledge or self-defense – in a § 111 case, you did not know the person was a federal officer, or you responded to excessive force

Detention and Release in Threat Cases

Prosecutors frequently ask the court to detain people charged with threats or stalking until trial, arguing they are a danger to the alleged victim. A strong release plan, including mental health evaluation or treatment, a third-party custodian, location monitoring and no-contact conditions, can make the difference. Learn more on our page about federal detention hearings in New Jersey.

Collateral Consequences

A federal threats or stalking conviction can bar you from possessing firearms, affect immigration status, lead to loss of a security clearance or professional license, and trigger restrictions on internet use during supervised release. Where possible, your lawyer may pursue a resolution involving a lesser misdemeanor, pretrial diversion or a sentence of probation, especially for first-time offenders whose statements were made during a crisis.

Related Federal Defense Guides

• Federal detention hearings and pretrial release
• Supervised release and federal probation violations
• Computer fraud and hacking
• Federal investigations, target letters and grand jury subpoenas

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a social media post be a federal crime?

Yes. A post that threatens to injure or kidnap someone can be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which carries up to five years, because internet communications travel in interstate commerce. The government must still prove the statement was a true threat and that you acted at least recklessly.

What if I was only joking?

Jokes, sarcasm and obvious exaggeration are not true threats. Under Counterman v. Colorado, the government must prove that you consciously disregarded a substantial risk that your words would be understood as a threat of violence. The full context of the statement is critical.

Is cyberstalking a state or federal crime in New Jersey?

It can be both. New Jersey prosecutes stalking and harassment under state law, while federal prosecutors can charge cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A when the conduct uses the internet, phones or other interstate facilities. In some cases both are charged.

Is it a federal crime to push a TSA officer?

It can be. Forcibly assaulting, resisting or interfering with a federal employee performing official duties, including a TSA officer, can be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 111. Simple assault is a misdemeanor, but physical contact can raise the maximum to eight years.

Will I be held in jail until trial on a federal threats charge?

Not always. Prosecutors often seek detention, but many defendants are released on conditions such as no contact with the alleged victim, location monitoring, mental health treatment and restrictions on internet use. A prepared release plan improves the chances of release.