Stalking in the Third Degree — C.G.S. § 53a-181e

Stalking 3rd is the charge Connecticut uses when someone repeatedly shows up, follows, or reaches out in ways that would make a reasonable person feel unsafe or seriously on edge. Think in-person appearances near home or work, routine “drive-bys,” or persistent contact that won’t stop. It’s the “pattern” that turns ordinary encounters into a criminal case.

Under § 53a-181e, the State has to show a course of conduct aimed at a particular person—repeated following, monitoring, approaching, or communicating—and that you knew or should have known those actions would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety (or that of a family/household member) or to suffer substantial emotional distress.

Charge level: Class B misdemeanor.

• Up to 6 months in jail, a $1,000 fine, and probation.
• Court-ordered no-contact/stay-away rules, counseling, or supervision conditions.
• Collateral issues: employment/licensing impacts, immigration concerns, and exposure to companion charges (e.g., harassment, breach of peace, violation of protective order).

Over several weeks, someone appears outside an ex’s office at lunch, follows to the parking garage, and attempts contact after being told to stop. That consistent pattern supports Stalking 3rd.

A neighbor parks across from a home most evenings, idles for 20 minutes, and takes photos. The repetition and proximity would reasonably cause fear or major distress.

Catching the same train car three mornings in a row and trailing the person from the station to their building after a dispute—especially after a “please stop”—can satisfy the “course of conduct” element.

Two people argue in a store, then happen to pass each other once more the next day. No follow-up, no messages, no new encounters. Without repetition, Stalking 3rd doesn’t fit.

• Stalking in the Second Degree — C.G.S. § 53a-181d
• Stalking in the First Degree — C.G.S. § 53a-181c
• 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
• Breach of Peace in the Second Degree — C.G.S. § 53a-181

• No pattern, no case: Two scattered sightings aren’t a “course of conduct.” We chart dates, times, and locations to show no sustained pursuit.
• Lawful purpose: Child exchanges, retrieving property at agreed times, or one-time service of legal papers can be legitimate and limited.
• Benign presence: Being in a public place for your own errands is not stalking. Receipts, calendars, transit/parking/toll data, and witnesses help prove coincidence.
• Identity doubt: Nighttime conditions, similar vehicles/clothing, or weak video can undercut identification.
• De-escalation: Evidence that you changed routes or ceased contact after notice weakens the State’s “ongoing conduct” theory.

If the parties are spouses, dating partners, co-parents, or household members, the case usually goes to the DV docket. Expect a protective order at arraignment and a focus on in-person safety—neutral exchange locations, staggered pick-ups, and clear distance rules.

Family Violence Education Program (FVEP). In DV cases, courts often look to FVEP. With court approval and successful completion of the class track (and strict compliance with any order), the case is typically closed and erased from public view. We support the application with counseling documentation, proof you stopped contact, and a proximity plan (routes, exchange sites) that addresses safety.

Eligible first-timers can request Accelerated Rehabilitation (AR). If the court grants AR and you complete the terms, the matter is discharged and removed from public records. We pair any AR request with a short, written plan that reduces future in-person overlap—schedules, neutral locations, and boundaries the court can trust.

A series of actions aimed at the same person—repeated showing up, following, or contacting—not a one-off incident.

No. The State focuses on repetition and impact—fear or serious distress—even without explicit threats.

Keep contact limited to court-approved logistics at neutral sites. We document the purpose and timing to show necessity, not pursuit.

Yes, when online activity leads to in-person appearances (e.g., showing up after a location tag). Repetition ties it together.

In DV settings, judges commonly issue temporary stay-away or limited-contact orders at arraignment tailored to the facts.

Accidental overlap isn’t enough. Without repetition and an aim at the same person, the statute isn’t met.

Neutral proof of where you were and why—receipts, transit/parking/toll data, calendars, and any exchange/schedule documents.

Any criminal matter can. Securing a dismissal and record removal through FVEP/AR or a straight dismissal protects background checks and filings.

Not before speaking with counsel. Off-the-cuff explanations about “why you were there” often help the State, not you.

If a protective order is in place, do not respond. Even a single reply can lead to a new arrest. Save it and give it to your lawyer.

These cases turn on details—where you were, how often, and why. Bring me the paperwork and data that prove your side of the story, and we’ll build a plan that narrows the allegations, protects your freedom, and keeps your record clean.

Call (203) 357-5555 or use my contact page for a confidential consultation.