THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.540e Malicious use of service provided by telecommunications service provider.
Sec. 540e.
(1) A person who maliciously uses any service provided by a telecommunications service provider with intent to terrorize, frighten, intimidate, threaten, harass, molest, or annoy another person, or to disturb the peace and quiet of another person by doing any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(a) Threatening physical harm or damage to any person or property in the course of a conversation or message through the use of a telecommunications service or device.
(b) Falsely and deliberately reporting by message through the use of a telecommunications service or device that a person has been injured, has suddenly taken ill, has suffered death, or has been the victim of a crime or an accident.
(c) Deliberately refusing or failing to disengage a connection between a telecommunications device and another telecommunications device or between a telecommunications device and other equipment provided for the transmission of messages through the use of a telecommunications service or device.
(d) Using vulgar, indecent, obscene, or offensive language or suggesting any lewd or lascivious act in the course of a conversation or message through the use of a telecommunications service or device.
(e) Repeatedly initiating a telephone call and, without speaking, deliberately hanging up or breaking the telephone connection as or after the telephone call is answered.
(f) Making an unsolicited commercial telephone call that is received between the hours of 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. As used in this subdivision, "an unsolicited commercial telephone call" means a call made by a person or recording device, on behalf of a person, corporation, or other entity, soliciting business or contributions.
(g) Deliberately engaging or causing to engage the use of a telecommunications service or device of another person in a repetitive manner that causes interruption in telecommunications service or prevents the person from utilizing the person's telecommunications service or device.
(h) Engaging in any of the conduct prohibited under subdivisions (a) to (g) if the person and the other person are spouses or former spouses, have or have had a dating relationship, have or have had a child in common, or are residents or former residents of the same household. As used in this subdivision, "dating relationship" means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. This term does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in a business or social context.
(2) A person who violates this section may be imprisoned for not more than 6 months or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both. An offense is committed under this section if the communication either originates or terminates in this state and may be prosecuted at the place of origination or termination.
(3) As used in this section, "telecommunications service" and "telecommunications device" mean those terms as defined in section 540c.
History: Add. 1969, Act 328, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 395, Eff. Mar. 30, 1989 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 577, Eff. Nov. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 199, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case:
People v. Taravella, 350 N.W.2d 780 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
People v. Taravella, 350 N.W.2d 780 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “We are asked to determine whether the Michigan statute proscribing the malicious use of telephone and telegraph services, MCL 750.540e; MSA 28.808(5), is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.”
People v. Maben, 884 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “MCL 750.540e(l) (emphasis added). The Legislature has not adopted classifications for misdemeanor offenses such as this one.”
Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc, 503 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 2× “[10] Finally, the compounding statute, MCL 750.540e; MSA 28.808(5), even if not applicable where the underlying activity is a misdemeanor, is additional and further evidence for finding sufficient legislative expression of a policy prohibiting an employer from conditioning…”
In Re Chmura, 626 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 750.540e(1)(e); MSA 28.808(5). Bond was set by James Conrad in the amount of $3,500.”
David K. Pratt & Teri D. Pratt v. Brown Mach. Co., a Div. of John Brown, Inc., 855 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir. 1988).
“Focusing on the compounding statute, the company says that the provision applies only when the underlying offense is a felony; however, since the alleged offense here (obscene telephone calls) was a misdemeanor, Mich. Comp.Laws § 750.540e, the compounding statute is inapplicable.”
Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 327 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. 1982).
“, when a name, address, and phone number listed in the student directory is used for obscene or threatening phone calls, MCL 750.540e; MSA 28.808(5), or extortion, MCL 750.”
People v. Warner, 258 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. 1977).
· cites it 2× “[11] MCLA 750.540e; MSA 28.808(5). [12] Because the circuit judge originally concluded that the derived evidence should not be suppressed if the interception was inadvertent and later decided to suppress the evidence on alternative grounds, the record was not fully developed.”
People v. Lowenstein, 325 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“On January 12, 1979, defendant was charged with making a threatening phone call, MCL 750.540e(l)(a); MSA 28.808(5)(l)(a), and carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.”
in Re Jocelyn Palmer (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 12× “]” MCL 750.540e (emphasis added). No evidence supports that respondent specifically intended that S would ever read or learn of the text messages.”
In re Klocek, 805 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“MCL 750.540e. On August 15, 2007, the court held an adjudication hearing.”
People of Michigan v. David Joseph Lenio (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “Both defendant and the victim had public Twitter profiles. Defendant’s correspondence with the victim began in February 2015 when defendant responded to the victim’s tweet regarding two fatal shootings at free speech events in Copenhagen, Denmark.”
People v. Henderson, 245 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
“MCLA 750.540e(l)(b); MSA 28.808(5)(l)(b).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(1) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. David Joseph Lenio (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Both defendant and the victim had public Twitter profiles. Defendant’s correspondence with the victim began in February 2015 when defendant responded to the victim’s tweet regarding two fatal shootings at free speech events in Copenhagen, Denmark.”
in Re Jocelyn Palmer (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“]” MCL 750.540e (emphasis added). No evidence supports that respondent specifically intended that S would ever read or learn of the text messages.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(1)(a) — 5 cases
in Re Jocelyn Palmer (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“]” MCL 750.540e (emphasis added). No evidence supports that respondent specifically intended that S would ever read or learn of the text messages.”
People of Michigan v. David Joseph Lenio (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Both defendant and the victim had public Twitter profiles. Defendant’s correspondence with the victim began in February 2015 when defendant responded to the victim’s tweet regarding two fatal shootings at free speech events in Copenhagen, Denmark.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(1)(a)(1) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(1)(b) — 1 case
in Re Jocelyn Palmer (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“]” MCL 750.540e (emphasis added). No evidence supports that respondent specifically intended that S would ever read or learn of the text messages.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(1)(d) — 1 case
People v. Taravella, 350 N.W.2d 780 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“We are asked to determine whether the Michigan statute proscribing the malicious use of telephone and telegraph services, MCL 750.540e; MSA 28.808(5), is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(1)(e) — 1 case
In Re Chmura, 626 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. 2001).
“§ 750.540e(1)(e); MSA 28.808(5). Bond was set by James Conrad in the amount of $3,500.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(1)(g) — 1 case
in Re Jocelyn Palmer (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“]” MCL 750.540e (emphasis added). No evidence supports that respondent specifically intended that S would ever read or learn of the text messages.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(l) — 1 case
People v. Maben, 884 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“MCL 750.540e(l) (emphasis added). The Legislature has not adopted classifications for misdemeanor offenses such as this one.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Lowenstein, 325 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“On January 12, 1979, defendant was charged with making a threatening phone call, MCL 750.540e(l)(a); MSA 28.808(5)(l)(a), and carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(l)(b) — 1 case
People v. Henderson, 245 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
“MCLA 750.540e(l)(b); MSA 28.808(5)(l)(b).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.540e(l)(e) — 1 case
In Re Chmura, 626 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. 2001).
“§ 750.540e(1)(e); MSA 28.808(5). Bond was set by James Conrad in the amount of $3,500.”
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.