A. A person commits harassment if the person knowingly and repeatedly commits an act or acts that harass another person or the person knowingly commits any one of the following acts in a manner that harasses:
1. Contacts or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means.
2. Continues to follow another person in or about a public place after being asked by that person to desist.
3. Surveils or causes a person to surveil another person.
4. Makes a false report to a law enforcement, credit or social service agency against another person.
5. Interferes with the delivery of any public or regulated utility to another person.
B. A person commits harassment against a public officer or employee if the person, with intent to harass, files a nonconsensual lien against any public officer or employee that is not accompanied by an order or a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of the lien or is not issued by a governmental entity or political subdivision or agency pursuant to its statutory authority, a validly licensed utility or water delivery company, a mechanics' lien claimant or an entity created under covenants, conditions, restrictions or declarations affecting real property.
C. Harassment under subsection A is a class 1 misdemeanor. Harassment under subsection B is a class 5 felony.
D. This section does not apply to any of the following:
1. A lawful demonstration, assembly or picketing.
2. A professional investigator or peace officer who is licensed by this state and who is acting within the scope of the investigator's or officer's duties in connection with any criminal or civil investigation.
3. A certified and duly authorized process server who is acting within the scope of the process server's duties in connection with any judicial or administrative action or proceeding.
E. For the purposes of this section, "harass" means conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed, humiliated or mentally distressed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys, humiliates or mentally distresses the person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
27 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case:
State v. Brown, 85 P.3d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Brown, 85 P.3d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 21× “Brown contends Arizona’s harassment statute, A.R.S. § 13-2921, is unconstitutionally vague and over-broad and violates his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.”
Cardoso v. Soldo, 277 P.3d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-3601(A) (2010) (defining domestic violence as including harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921(A)(1) if the victim has a specified relationship with the defendant).”
Lay v. Nelson In & For Cnty. Of Yuma, 436 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Lay was charged with harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921(A)(1) (2019) and threatening or intimidating under A.”
State v. Lychwick, 218 P.3d 1061 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “Nor does he challenge, on appeal, the underlying facts supporting a finding of harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921 (2001). 4 Defendant’s sole contention is that the injunction was not “still valid” on January 17, 2007, thus precluding a conviction for aggravated harassment.”
Briana Hernandez v. Luis Arturo Loarca (Ariz. 2026).
· cites it 21× “One such offense is harassment under § 13-2921. See § 13-3601(A). ¶10 Section 13-2921(A) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person commits harassment” by “knowingly and repeatedly” contacting or communicating with “another person .”
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 20× “Brown contends Arizona’s harassment statute, A.R.S. § 13-2921, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and violates his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.”
Nicaise v. Sundaram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 10× “SUNDARAM Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 Sundaram makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the superior court erred by ruling that her conduct during the second incident in the doctor’s office constituted harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921; (2) the superior court denied Sundaram…”
Cusick v. Gerth (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 10× “Construed in the light most favorable to Cusick, his petition arguably alleges harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921, based on Gerth’s contact with R.”
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios, 502 P.3d 474 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 10× “” As stated above, Rios was charged in count one with aggravated harassment, a class six felony, and in count two with aggravated harassment, a class five felony.”
Briana Hernandez v. Luis Arturo Loarca (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 10× ““Domestic violence” includes several crimes, among which is harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921. See A.R.S. § 13-3601(A).”
Taylor (D. Ariz. 2025).
· cites it 10× “Code 223 and A.R.S. 13-2921”). Upon review, the 14 requirements for federal question jurisdiction in this matter are satisfied.”
Banks v. Bailey (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 9× “”) Section 13- 1202 but constituted harassment under Section 13-2921. It found there were comments “intended to disturb and harass [Banks]” which were “clearly designed to be personal,” and did in fact disturb and alarm Banks.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(A) — 15 cases
State v. Brown, 85 P.3d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“Brown contends Arizona’s harassment statute, A.R.S. § 13-2921, is unconstitutionally vague and over-broad and violates his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.”
Nicaise v. Sundaram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“SUNDARAM Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 Sundaram makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the superior court erred by ruling that her conduct during the second incident in the doctor’s office constituted harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921; (2) the superior court denied Sundaram…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(A)(1) — 15 cases
Cardoso v. Soldo, 277 P.3d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“§ 13-3601(A) (2010) (defining domestic violence as including harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921(A)(1) if the victim has a specified relationship with the defendant).”
State v. Brown, 85 P.3d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“Brown contends Arizona’s harassment statute, A.R.S. § 13-2921, is unconstitutionally vague and over-broad and violates his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.”
Lay v. Nelson In & For Cnty. Of Yuma, 436 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Lay was charged with harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921(A)(1) (2019) and threatening or intimidating under A.”
Cusick v. Gerth (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“Construed in the light most favorable to Cusick, his petition arguably alleges harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921, based on Gerth’s contact with R.”
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios, 502 P.3d 474 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“” As stated above, Rios was charged in count one with aggravated harassment, a class six felony, and in count two with aggravated harassment, a class five felony.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(A)(3) — 2 cases
Nicaise v. Sundaram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“SUNDARAM Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 Sundaram makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the superior court erred by ruling that her conduct during the second incident in the doctor’s office constituted harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921; (2) the superior court denied Sundaram…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(A)(4) — 4 cases
Briana Hernandez v. Luis Arturo Loarca (Ariz. 2026).
“One such offense is harassment under § 13-2921. See § 13-3601(A). ¶10 Section 13-2921(A) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person commits harassment” by “knowingly and repeatedly” contacting or communicating with “another person .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(A)(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(B) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(D) — 2 cases
State v. Brown, 85 P.3d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“Brown contends Arizona’s harassment statute, A.R.S. § 13-2921, is unconstitutionally vague and over-broad and violates his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.”
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“Brown contends Arizona’s harassment statute, A.R.S. § 13-2921, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and violates his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(E) — 23 cases
State v. Brown, 85 P.3d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“Brown contends Arizona’s harassment statute, A.R.S. § 13-2921, is unconstitutionally vague and over-broad and violates his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.”
Lay v. Nelson In & For Cnty. Of Yuma, 436 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Lay was charged with harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921(A)(1) (2019) and threatening or intimidating under A.”
Briana Hernandez v. Luis Arturo Loarca (Ariz. 2026).
“One such offense is harassment under § 13-2921. See § 13-3601(A). ¶10 Section 13-2921(A) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person commits harassment” by “knowingly and repeatedly” contacting or communicating with “another person .”
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.