Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 506 (2026)

Harassment by telephone or by electronic communication device

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  A person is guilty of harassment by telephone or by electronic communication device if:  
A. By means of telephone or electronic communication device the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal without the consent of the person called or contacted:  
(1) That is, in fact, obscene; or  
(2) With conscious disregard of a substantial risk that a reasonable person would find the comment, request, suggestion or proposal offensively coarse.  
Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime;   [PL 2023, c. 519, §3 (RPR).]
A-1. By means of telephone or electronic communication device the person, with the intent to cause affront or alarm or for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, sends an image or video of a sexual act as defined in section 251, subsection 1, paragraph C or of the actor's or another person's genitals and:  
(1) The person called or contacted is in fact under 14 years of age;  
(2) The person called or contacted is in fact 14 or 15 years of age and the actor is at least 5 years older than the person called or contacted; or  
(3) The person called or contacted suffers from a mental disability that is reasonably apparent or known to the actor.  
Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime;   [PL 2017, c. 397, §1 (NEW).]
A-2. By means of telephone or electronic communication device the person sends an image or a video of a sexual act as defined in section 251, subsection 1, paragraph C or of the actor's or another person's genitals without the consent of the person called or contacted after the person called or contacted has notified the actor, in writing or otherwise, that the person does not consent to receiving such images or videos. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime;   [PL 2017, c. 397, §1 (NEW).]
B. The person makes a telephone call or makes a call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, whether or not oral or written conversation ensues, without disclosing the person's identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at the called or contacted number or account. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime;   [PL 2017, c. 397, §1 (AMD).]
C. The person makes or causes the telephone or electronic communication device of another repeatedly or continuously to ring or activate or receive data, with the intent to harass any person at the called or contacted number or account. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime;   [PL 2017, c. 397, §1 (AMD).]
D. The person makes repeated telephone calls or repeated calls or contacts by means of an electronic communication device, during which oral or written conversation ensues, with the intent to harass any person at the called or contacted number or account. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime; or   [PL 2017, c. 397, §1 (AMD).]
E. The person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic communication device under the person's control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime.   [PL 2017, c. 397, §1 (AMD).]
[PL 2023, c. 519, §3 (AMD).]
2.  The crime defined in this section may be prosecuted and punished in the county in which the defendant was located when the defendant used the telephone or electronic communication device, or in the county in which the telephone called or made to ring or the electronic communication device called or made to ring or be activated or receive data by the defendant was located.  
[PL 2011, c. 464, §14 (AMD); PL 2011, c. 464, §30 (AFF).]
2-A.  As used in this section, "electronic communication device" means any electronic or digital product that communicates at a distance by electronic transmission impulses or by fiber optics, including any software capable of sending and receiving communication, allowing a person to electronically engage in the conduct prohibited under this section.  
[PL 2011, c. 464, §14 (NEW); PL 2011, c. 464, §30 (AFF).]
3. 
[PL 2017, c. 397, §1 (RP).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §66 (RPR). PL 1981, c. 317, §20 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 464, §14 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 464, §30 (AFF). PL 2017, c. 397, §1 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 519, §3 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: State v. Cyr, 389 A.2d 834 (Me. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cyr, 389 A.2d 834 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “§ 806) and harassment by telephone (17-A M.R.S.A. § 506) (two charges), defendant Aline P.”
Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Jud. Court, 355 A.2d 341 (Me. 1976). “17-A MRSA § 506, as enacted by PL 1975, c.”
State v. Jacques, 537 A.2d 587 (Me. 1988). “Bail was revoked on August 9 because Jacques had been charged with four counts of harassment by telephone, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 506 (1983). Jacques’ arraignment and competency hearing for the *592 harassment charges and his sentencing for the burglary and criminal mischief…”
State v. Liberty, 853 A.2d 760 (Me. 2004). “2000); and harassment by telephone (Class E), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 506(1)(B) (1988). 1 At Liberty’s arraignment, he appeared with counsel and waived reading of the complaint.”
Roussel v. Mayo (D. Me. 2024). “Sheriff Young maintains that the service of the Cease Harassment Notice cannot amount to an adverse action because to prove a violation of 17-A M.R.S. § 506- A, a person must harass, torment, or threaten another person only after he or she has received a cease harassment notice,…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 506(1)(B) — 1 case
State v. Liberty, 853 A.2d 760 (Me. 2004). “2000); and harassment by telephone (Class E), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 506(1)(B) (1988). 1 At Liberty’s arraignment, he appeared with counsel and waived reading of the complaint.”
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.