Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709 (2026)

 Harassment.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 2709.  Harassment.

(a)  Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person:

(1)  strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same;

(2)  follows the other person in or about a public place or places;

(3)  engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose;

(4)  communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures;

(5)  communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;

(6)  communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours; or

(7)  communicates repeatedly in a manner other than specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).

(a.1)  Cyber harassment of a child.--

(1)  A person commits the crime of cyber harassment of a child if, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm, the person engages in a continuing course of conduct of making any of the following by electronic means directly to a child or by publication through an electronic social media service:

(i)  seriously disparaging statement or opinion about the child's physical characteristics, sexuality, sexual activity or mental or physical health or condition; or

(ii)  threat to inflict harm.

(2)  (i)  If a juvenile is charged with a violation of paragraph (1), the judicial authority with jurisdiction over the violation shall give first consideration to referring the juvenile charged with the violation to a diversionary program under Pa.R.J.C.P. No. 312 (relating to Informal Adjustment) or No. 370 (relating to Consent Decree). As part of the diversionary program, the judicial authority may order the juvenile to participate in an educational program which includes the legal and nonlegal consequences of cyber harassment.

(ii)  If the person successfully completes the diversionary program, the juvenile's records of the charge of violating paragraph (1) shall be expunged as provided for under section 9123 (relating to juvenile records).

(b)  Stalking.--(Deleted by amendment).

(b.1)  Venue.--

(1)  An offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been committed at either the place at which the communication or communications were made or at the place where the communication or communications were received.

(2)  Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.

(3)  In addition to paragraphs (1) and (2), an offense under subsection (a.1) may be deemed to have been committed at the place where the child who is the subject of the communication resides.

(c)  Grading.--

(1)  Except as provided under paragraph (3), an offense under subsection (a)(1), (2) or (3) shall constitute a summary offense.

(2)  An offense under subsection (a)(4), (5), (6) or (7) or (a.1) shall constitute a misdemeanor of the third degree.

(3)  The grading of an offense under subsection (a)(1), (2) or (3) shall be enhanced one degree if the person has previously violated an order issued under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108 (relating to relief) involving the same victim, family or household member.

(d)  False reports.--A person who knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to implicate another under this section commits an offense under section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement authorities).

(e)  Application of section.--This section shall not apply to constitutionally protected activity.

(e.1)  Course of conduct.--(Deleted by amendment).

(f)  Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Communicates."  Conveys a message without intent of legitimate communication or address by oral, nonverbal, written or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail, Internet, facsimile, telex, wireless communication or similar transmission.

"Course of conduct."  A pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct. The term includes lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings, caricatures or actions, either in person or anonymously. Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.

"Emotional distress."  A temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.

"Family or household member."  Spouses or persons who have been spouses, persons living as spouses or who lived as spouses, parents and children, other persons related by consanguinity or affinity, current or former sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood.

"Seriously disparaging statement or opinion."  A statement or opinion which is intended to and under the circumstances is reasonably likely to cause substantial emotional distress to a child of the victim's age and which produces some physical manifestation of the distress.

 

(June 23, 1993, P.L.124, No.28, eff. imd.; Oct. 2, 1997, P.L.379, No.44, eff. 60 days; Dec. 15, 1999, P.L.915, No.59, eff. 60 days; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1759, No.218, eff. 60 days; Nov. 27, 2013, P.L.1061, No.91, eff. 60 days; July 10, 2015, P.L.140, No.26, eff. 60 days; Nov. 4, 2015, P.L.224, No.59, eff. 60 days)

 

2015 Amendments.  Act 26 amended subsecs. (c)(2) and (f) and added subsecs. (a.1) and (b.1)(3) and Act 59 amended subsec. (e). See the preamble to Act 59 of 2015 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to legislative intent.

2013 Amendment.  Act 91 amended subsec. (c) and added the def. of "family or household member" in subsec. (f).

2002 Amendment.  See sections 9 and 10 of Act 218 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to references to section 2709 and references to section 5504.

Cross References.  Section 2709 is referred to in sections 4954, 4955, 5708 of this title; sections 6108, 6711 of Title 23 (Domestic Relations); sections 3573, 62A03 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure); section 6138 of Title 61 (Prisons and Parole).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 397 cases (129 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 4× “In his view, the trial court could not have concluded Children were abused or were in danger of abuse within the 9 We note there is some ambiguity in the PFA Act as to whether “as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2709 (relating to harassment) and 2709.”
In the Int. of: T.Q.B., a Minor, 286 A.3d 270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). · cites it 10× “§ 6321(c) (transmission of sexually explicit images by a minor) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a.1) (cyber harassment of a child).”
Com. v. Salinas, R., 307 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 6× “3 Appellant, Appellant’s son Daniel, and the ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(3). 2 We note that Appellant’s son Daniel Salinas has also appealed his Harassment conviction arising from the same incident.”
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 363 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976). · cites it 8× “The statute in question, 18 Pa. C.S. § 2709, provides as follows: *543 "A person commits a summary offense when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: .”
Commonwealth v. Ostrosky, 909 A.2d 1224 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 4× “§ 5503(a)(1-4); and two counts of harassment and stalking, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709. Regarding the Commonwealth's allegation that Ostrosky violated the retaliation statute, the Commonwealth alleged that Ostrosky harmed the Fosters by making terroristic threats, engaging in disorderly…”
Commonwealth v. Giulian v. Aplt., 141 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016). · cites it 2× “§5505, and harassment, 18 Pa.C.S. §2709(a)(1). At this same time, appellant was also charged with the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct, 18 Pa.”
Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002). · cites it 2× “2002); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2709 (a), (c)(1) (2000).”
Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 4× “18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 2709(a)(3); see also Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Danzey, 210 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “3 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(A)(4). 4 Victim's sister also testified that she reported the account bearing the name "Quin Loveislove Robbins" to Facebook due to the inappropriate posts.”
Com. v. Wroten, C., 2021 Pa. Super. 124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1). Furthermore, an inference can be drawn from Appellee’s actions that it was more likely than not that he had the “intent to harass, annoy or alarm” Rogers.”
Ake v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Acct., 974 A.2d 514 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a). An offense under subsection (3) is a summary offense, while an offense under subsections (4), (5), (6) or (7) is graded as a misdemeanor of the third degree.”
Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “"] 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(7). 5 As we dispose of Appellant's claim on the basis of his first argument, we need not examine his alternative argument.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(1) — 7 cases
Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 712 A.2d 749 (Pa. 1998).
Commonwealth v. Fox, 1 Pa. D. & C.4th 207 (1987).
Com. v. Lane, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
Commonwealth v. Aukstakalnis, 25 Pa. D. & C.4th 139 (1995).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(2) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 25 Pa. D. & C.4th 38 (1995).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(3) — 8 cases
Commonwealth v. Bender, 375 A.2d 354 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977).
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 363 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976). “The statute in question, 18 Pa. C.S. § 2709, provides as follows: *543 "A person commits a summary offense when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: .”
Commonwealth v. Speller, 458 A.2d 198 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983).
Commonwealth v. Tedesco, 550 A.2d 796 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988).
Com. v. Riggle, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(8) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 363 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976). “The statute in question, 18 Pa. C.S. § 2709, provides as follows: *543 "A person commits a summary offense when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: .”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(A)(1) — 1 case
Com. v. Porter, G. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(A)(4) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Danzey, 210 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). “3 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(A)(4). 4 Victim's sister also testified that she reported the account bearing the name "Quin Loveislove Robbins" to Facebook due to the inappropriate posts.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a) — 26 cases
Commonwealth v. Ostrosky, 909 A.2d 1224 (Pa. 2006). “§ 5503(a)(1-4); and two counts of harassment and stalking, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709. Regarding the Commonwealth's allegation that Ostrosky violated the retaliation statute, the Commonwealth alleged that Ostrosky harmed the Fosters by making terroristic threats, engaging in disorderly…”
E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “In his view, the trial court could not have concluded Children were abused or were in danger of abuse within the 9 We note there is some ambiguity in the PFA Act as to whether “as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2709 (relating to harassment) and 2709.”
Ake v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Acct., 974 A.2d 514 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). “18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a). An offense under subsection (3) is a summary offense, while an offense under subsections (4), (5), (6) or (7) is graded as a misdemeanor of the third degree.”
In the Int. of: T.Q.B., a Minor, 286 A.3d 270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). “§ 6321(c) (transmission of sexually explicit images by a minor) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a.1) (cyber harassment of a child).”
Hubbell v. World Kitchen, LLC, 688 F. Supp. 2d 401 (W.D. Pa. 2010).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(1) — 117 cases
Commonwealth v. Giulian v. Aplt., 141 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016). “§5505, and harassment, 18 Pa.C.S. §2709(a)(1). At this same time, appellant was also charged with the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct, 18 Pa.”
Com. v. Wroten, C., 2021 Pa. Super. 124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1). Furthermore, an inference can be drawn from Appellee’s actions that it was more likely than not that he had the “intent to harass, annoy or alarm” Rogers.”
Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
Commonwealth v. Williams, 166 A.3d 460 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
K.G. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 187 A.3d 276 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(2) — 7 cases
Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
Com. v. Collins, J., 286 A.3d 767 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
Com. v. Wengert, C., Jr. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
Com. v. Mezzacappa, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
Com. v. Dougba, I. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(3) — 58 cases
Com. v. Salinas, R., 307 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). “3 Appellant, Appellant’s son Daniel, and the ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(3). 2 We note that Appellant’s son Daniel Salinas has also appealed his Harassment conviction arising from the same incident.”
Commonwealth v. Patosky, 656 A.2d 499 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 2709(a)(3); see also Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Zullinger, 676 A.2d 687 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
Shelley v. Wilson, 339 F. App'x 136 (3rd Cir. 2009).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(4) — 59 cases
Commonwealth v. Danzey, 210 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). “3 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(A)(4). 4 Victim's sister also testified that she reported the account bearing the name "Quin Loveislove Robbins" to Facebook due to the inappropriate posts.”
E.A.M. v. A.m.d., III, 173 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
Com. v. Broitman, S., 217 A.3d 297 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
Polito v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 78 Pa. D. & C.4th 328 (2004).
In Re: D.C.D. Appeal of: Commonwealth, 171 A.3d 727 (Pa. 2017).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(5) — 2 cases
Com. v. Fischer, N., 2024 Pa. Super. 313 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
Com. v. Jones, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(7) — 13 cases
Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “"] 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(7). 5 As we dispose of Appellant's claim on the basis of his first argument, we need not examine his alternative argument.”
Com. v. Papp, K., 2023 Pa. Super. 209 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
Com. v. Fischer, N., 2024 Pa. Super. 313 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
Com. v. Walters, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
E.J. Nicholas v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(9) — 1 case
Com. v. Ramriez, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(I) — 1 case
Com. v. Burak, E. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(a)(l) — 10 cases
Imbergamo v. Castaldi, 392 F. Supp. 2d 686 (M.D. Penn. 2005).
Commonwealth v. Brandwein, 10 Pa. D. & C.5th 13 (2009).
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 13 Pa. D. & C.5th 33 (2010).
Com. v. Mongeau, P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
Com. v. Lane, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(b) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 2709(a)(3); see also Commonwealth v.”
Com. v. Hoffman, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
Ascencio v. People, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120274 (D.V.I. 2010).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(b)(1) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(b)(2) — 2 cases
Shelley v. Wilson, 339 F. App'x 136 (3rd Cir. 2009).
Shelley v. Wilson, 339 F. App'x 136 (3rd Cir. 2009).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(c) — 2 cases
Ake v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Acct., 974 A.2d 514 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). “18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a). An offense under subsection (3) is a summary offense, while an offense under subsections (4), (5), (6) or (7) is graded as a misdemeanor of the third degree.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(c)(1) — 4 cases
Vetter, J. & Jones, A. v. Miller, A., 157 A.3d 943 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
Ickes v. Grassmeyer, 30 F. Supp. 3d 375 (W.D. Pa. 2014).
Com. v. Dreese, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
E.J. Nicholas v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(c)(2) — 3 cases
Ickes v. Grassmeyer, 30 F. Supp. 3d 375 (W.D. Pa. 2014).
Com. v. Pristas, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
E.J. Nicholas v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(c)(3) — 2 cases
E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “In his view, the trial court could not have concluded Children were abused or were in danger of abuse within the 9 We note there is some ambiguity in the PFA Act as to whether “as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2709 (relating to harassment) and 2709.”
E.K. v. J.R.A., 2020 Pa. Super. 184 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(c)(9) — 1 case
Com. v. Santos, F. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(e) — 2 cases
Com. v. Harmer, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
Com. v. Cost, W. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(e)(4) — 1 case
H.B. v. G.P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(f) — 20 cases
E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “In his view, the trial court could not have concluded Children were abused or were in danger of abuse within the 9 We note there is some ambiguity in the PFA Act as to whether “as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2709 (relating to harassment) and 2709.”
Commonwealth v. Kelly, 102 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 2709(a)(3); see also Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Battaglia, 725 A.2d 192 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999).
Com. v. Papp, K., 2023 Pa. Super. 209 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709(h) — 1 case
Com. v. Rothstein, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
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.