Electronic Stalking — C.G.S. § 53a-181f

“Electronic stalking” targets situations where someone uses technology—GPS trackers, phone apps, social media tools, or other electronic systems—to surveil or pursue another person in a way that creates fear of serious harm or substantial emotional distress, especially within family or dating relationships. These cases often start as “just checking where they are,” then escalate into tracking, monitoring, and repeated messaging that crosses legal lines.

A person commits electronic stalking when, with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, they use any interactive computer service, electronic communication service or system, or electronic monitoring system to place another person under surveillance or otherwise engage in a course of conduct that either:

1. Puts that person (or their immediate family member or intimate partner) in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury; or
2. Causes, attempts to cause, or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress to those same protected individuals.

Classification: Class D felony.

• Class D felony: up to 5 years in prison; fine up to $5,000; probation possible.
• Collateral issues: protective orders, device/phone search conditions, firearm disability risks, immigration/professional-license concerns, and companion charges (threatening, harassment, violation of protective order).

After a breakup, a person hides a tracker in the ex’s car and live‑checks movements while sending taunting DMs about where the ex “really is.” The repeated electronic monitoring plus messages intended to intimidate can support electronic stalking.

Using a shared account, someone tracks routes to work and childcare, then sends time‑stamped screenshots with threats like “I see you.” Intent to harass/intimidate and a course of conduct are present.

Creating burner profiles to follow, tag, and message a former partner and their sibling, paired with posts implying harm, can place the target or family in reasonable fear of serious injury or cause substantial emotional distress.

A spouse uses a shared locator once to find the other during a storm after they missed check‑in, with no threatening messages, no repeated monitoring, and no intent to harass. This lacks the required intent and course of conduct.

• Stalking in the First Degree — C.G.S. § 53a‑181c
• Stalking in the Second Degree — C.G.S. § 53a‑181d
• Stalking in the Third Degree — C.G.S. § 53a‑181e
• Harassment in the First Degree — C.G.S. § 53a‑182b
• Harassment in the Second Degree — C.G.S. § 53a‑183
• Violation of Protective Order — C.G.S. § 53a‑223

• No specific intent: Communications or device use were for safety/logistics, not to harass or intimidate.
• No “course of conduct”: A single or isolated check‑in won’t satisfy the statute.
• No fear of death/serious injury; no substantial distress: The State must prove the effect on the protected person(s).
• Consent / shared‑account norms: Mutual device‑sharing or routine family‑locator use can undercut non‑consensual surveillance theories.
• Misidentification / access control: Another person used the device or account; logs, IPs, and system records matter.
• Suppression issues: Unlawfully obtained phone or cloud data can be excluded.

Many § 53a‑181f cases arise out of intimate‑partner or family situations. When the parties are current/former spouses, dating partners, household members, or share a child, the case is typically placed on the Domestic Violence (DV) docket. Expect:

• Protective orders at arraignment (from limited to full no‑contact). Violations are separate crimes.
• Family Relations intake and recommendations (counseling, risk assessment, communication limits).
• A focus on safety planning and whether contact can resume under structure (e.g., parenting apps).

For many first‑time DV‑docket defendants, the Family Violence Education Program (FVEP) is a path to a dismissal and erasure of the charge after successful completion.

• Eligibility: Generally available to those with little/no record; granted at the judge’s discretion.
• Conditions: Group classes (typically 9–27 sessions depending on track), possible counseling, and strict no‑contact or structured‑contact compliance while enrolled.
• Outcome: Upon completion and compliance with any orders, the case is dismissed and erased.
• When we recommend FVEP: Where proof issues are mixed but the relationship context and court’s safety concerns suggest a program‑based resolution is the fastest way to protect your record.
• Strategy: We present a mitigation packet (counseling letters, structured communication plan, proof you stopped contact after any warning) to support admission.

For many first‑time offenders, for non domestic violence cases. Connecticut’s Accelerated Rehabilitation (AR) program may be available. If the judge grants AR and you complete the conditions, the case can be dismissed and erased. We’ll assess AR alongside defense strategy and any protective‑order conditions.

Trackers like Air Tags and Tiles, phone‑based location sharing, vehicle telematics, spyware, or platform tools used to surveil someone.

No. The law focuses on intent and a course of conduct that creates reasonable fear of serious harm or substantial emotional distress, even without explicit threats.

Usually no. Prosecutors look for repetition plus intent.

Long‑standing consensual sharing can undercut the State’s theory—unless it became non‑consensual and was used to harass or inti midate.

Passive viewing of public content is different from surveillance or a harassing course of conduct. The facts matter—save the full context.

This statute targets technology‑based surveillance/communications that elevate fear of serious harm or cause substantial distress to protected persons.

Often, yes—especially in intimate‑partner cases. Violating it is a separate crime.

Device logs, app permissions, account histories, texts/DMs, tracker purchase/activation data, and any consent records.

Felony stalking‑type convictions can carry immigration risks. Coordinate criminal and immigration counsel.

Early counseling, no‑contact compliance, and device/permission changes can support negotiations or AR.

Allegations like these feel invasive because they reach into your phone, your home, and your peace of mind. What matters now is controlling the narrative with facts: why the tech was used, what was shared by consent, and where the messages actually came from. If you’ve been accused under § 53a‑181f, call (203) 357‑5555 for a confidential consult or use my online contact form. I’ll review the device logs with you, map a no‑contact plan that keeps you safe in court, and move quickly toward the best possible outcome.