CAPITOL IDEAS
Swatting: State Efforts to Prevent Political Violence
Oct. 20, 2025
In recent years, false reports have been increasingly used to target, intimidate or harm public officials. For example, in January 2024, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft received a call from local law enforcement acknowledging their presence at his home and instructing him to meet them outside. Earlier that afternoon, someone had anonymously contacted law enforcement with a false report of a potential homicide and active shooter at his home.
After de-escalating the situation, police informed Ashcroft that the call was an apparent case of swatting — the act of falsely reporting an emergency to public safety services with the intent of prompting a police response to a location where no emergency exists.
Two years prior, the Missouri Legislature considered HB 1704 (2022), which sought to amend the state’s existing false reporting laws to establish criminal penalties for making a false report with “reckless disregard of causing bodily harm to any person as a direct result of an emergency response.” The bill would have established varying criminal penalties based on the severity and consequences of the false report and allowed victims to bring civil actions against perpetrators to recover damages.
Missouri HB 1704 failed to pass the Senate and recent efforts to enact similar legislation have also been unsuccessful. However, Missouri’s efforts to combat swatting are part of a larger national trend to establish clear legal pathways to prosecute and deter the act.
Amending False Reporting Laws to Address Swatting
State false reporting laws are the primary framework through which swatting can be prosecuted. Although these laws are well-established across all 50 states, they were not originally drafted to address swatting directly.
For example, in 1872, California established false reporting as a crime in Cal. Penal Code §7.148.3. A person could be found guilty of false reporting if they reported, or caused a report to be made, that an emergency exists, knowing the report was false. False reporting laws in Alabama date back to 1977 but only addressed instances of false fire alarms and making a false report to law enforcement of a crime or relating to a crime. In both states, false reporting was considered a misdemeanor.
In recent years, Alabama and California have enacted legislation to expand the scope of false reporting laws to better address swatting, increase penalties for swatting and establish responsibilities for costs incurred. Many states throughout the U.S. have taken similar actions to establish clear frameworks for legal recourse.
Two years prior, the Missouri Legislature considered HB 1704 (2022), which sought to amend the state’s existing false reporting laws to establish criminal penalties for making a false report with “reckless disregard of causing bodily harm to any person as a direct result of an emergency response.” The bill would have established varying criminal penalties based on the severity and consequences of the false report and allowed victims to bring civil actions against perpetrators to recover damages.
Missouri HB 1704 failed to pass the Senate and recent efforts to enact similar legislation have also been unsuccessful. However, Missouri’s efforts to combat swatting are part of a larger national trend to establish clear legal pathways to prosecute and deter the act.
Expanding False Reporting Laws to Directly Address Swatting
Since 2013, 15 states have enacted legislation to expand the scope of existing false reporting laws to directly address swatting. While states such as Alabama and Ohio have explicitly criminalized swatting, most states have amended statute to prosecute swatting-related actions under false reporting laws. This includes expanding false reporting statute beyond incidents like false fire alarms or police reports to also cover false reports of active shooters, as well as any false reports intended to trigger an emergency response or target a specific person, group of people or location.
STATE EXAMPLES
Increasing Penalties for Swatting
Since 2013, 25 states have enacted legislation to increase criminal penalties for those convicted of a swatting-related crime. Historically, criminal penalties for providing a false report were less severe given that they addressed non-violent offenses. But with the growing use of swatting calls to cause harm, and potentially deadly outcomes, states have established graduated criminal penalties based on:
- The outcome of the false report, meaning that penalties increase based on whether serious bodily harm, injury or death occur as result of the report or whether the report results in an emergency response.
- The nature of the report, meaning that penalties correspond with the class of crime that was falsely reported or increase based on whether the report involves weapons.
- The target of the report, meaning that penalties vary based on whether the report targets a specific person, group of people or location.
- The number of prior false reporting convictions a person has, meaning that penalties become more severe if the person has previously been convicted of swatting.
STATE EXAMPLES
Establishing Responsibility for Costs Incurred
Since 2013, 12 states have enacted legislation allowing courts to order any person convicted of a swatting-related crime to reimburse — or pay restitution to — public entities that responded to the false emergency or any person who suffered damages from the false report. States may require these agencies or individuals to submit an itemized list of related costs to the judge, or alternatively, file a civil cause of action in the county where the violation occurred. These obligations are often levied on top of the fines associated with the individual’s criminal conviction.
STATE EXAMPLES
Swatting is a serious and potentially deadly form of violence that can target public officials. To deter the act, states have increasingly sought to establish clear avenues for victims to seek legal recourse by amending false reporting laws, increasing penalties and establishing cost responsibilities. These efforts highlight states’ focus on preventing political violence and safeguarding our democracy.