NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FEDERAL LAWYERS
How serious is cyberstalking federally
|Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. We’re a second-generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek – who has many, many years of experience as a criminal defense attorney. Our team has over 40 years of combined experience handling federal cases. You’ve probably heard about some of the cases we’ve defended – the Netflix series about Anna Delvey, the Ghislaine Maxwell juror misconduct case, representing clients in matters others called unwinnable. If you’re researching federal cyberstalking charges, you need to understand what you’re facing and why the federal government treats this more seriously than most people realize.
Cyberstalking at the federal level isn’t just sending unwanted messages. The moment you use electronic communications to harass someone across state lines or through interstate networks – email, social media, texts – you’ve triggered federal jurisdiction under 18 USC 2261A(2). That’s the Violence Against Women Act’s cyberstalking provision, and federal prosecutors use it aggressively in 2025.
Federal Cyberstalking Is 18 USC 2261A(2) – Electronic Communications That Cross State Lines
The statute says you commit federal cyberstalking when you use electronic communications to engage in conduct that places someone in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, or causes substantial emotional distress. Electronic communication means email, instant messaging, social media posts, text messages, anything transmitted through interstate commerce.
Interstate commerce sounds technical. It’s not. Every email crosses state lines because servers are distributed nationally. Facebook messages, Instagram DMs, LinkedIn messages – they all use interstate infrastructure. Federal prosecutors don’t need to prove you physically crossed state lines. Using the internet is enough.
What federal prosecutors must prove is that your conduct was a course of conduct – not one message, but a pattern – that either placed the victim in reasonable fear or caused substantial emotional distress. Course of conduct typically means multiple messages over time. One threatening email probably stays state-level. Eighty messages over five months, like Edward John Kay sent to a Massachusetts professor in 2025, becomes federal.
The five-year statutory maximum sounds manageable until you realize actual sentences run much higher when aggravating factors appear. Phillip Gonzales got 33 months in June 2025 for harassing multiple women over nine months. James Florence Jr. got nine years in July 2025 for cyberstalking more than a dozen women – some were minors when the harassment started, prosecutors described their lives as “waking nightmares.” The sentence you receive depends heavily on what you did, how long you did it, who you targeted.
DOJ Prioritizes Threats of Violence, Minors, Law Enforcement Targets, Prolonged Campaigns
Not every cyberstalking case goes federal. States prosecute most online harassment. Federal prosecutors in 2025 focus on threats of violence, targeting of minors, harassment of law enforcement or government officials, or severe prolonged campaigns.
Scott Robert Tardy pleaded guilty in July 2025 to cyberstalking a South Carolina federal agent and his family. Tardy posted messages discussing throwing a Molotov cocktail into the agent’s bedroom while the agent and spouse slept – soliciting violence against federal law enforcement. He also faces false statements and obstruction charges. Targeting a federal agent with violent threats puts you in the most serious category.
Deputy U.S. Marshal Ian Diaz received 121 months after his February 2025 conviction. Diaz used his position to frame his ex-fiancée for sexual assault through an elaborate cyberstalking scheme. She spent 88 days in jail before the truth emerged. Federal judges don’t go easy on law enforcement officers who abuse their positions.
Multiple victims increase sentences substantially. Sumit Garg got nine years in July 2024 for sending thousands of threatening emails and texts to former roommates and others. Sheer volume – thousands of messages – combined with threats of violence drove the sentence into the high range.
Targeting minors draws enhanced penalties. James Florence Jr. cyberstalked women from 2008 to 2024, with at least two victims being minors when the harassment began. That sixteen-year pattern, targeting children, resulted in nine years.
Actual Prison Time Runs From 30 Months to Ten Years in Recent Cases
The statutory maximum for basic federal cyberstalking is five years and a $250,000 fine. If the victim is under 18, add five years. Repeat offenders face double. If the cyberstalking results in death – victim suicide, escalation to violence – life imprisonment becomes possible.
Median federal cyberstalking sentences from 2010 to 2020 were 30 months. Average sentences were 64 months because extreme cases skew higher. The conviction rate is 90 percent – if you’re indicted federally for cyberstalking, you’re getting convicted.
Recent 2025 cases show the range. Phillip Gonzales got 33 months for harassing multiple women over nine months. Brian Thomas Balda got 39 months for stalking a government official. James Florence Jr. got 108 months for targeting more than a dozen victims including minors over sixteen years. Ian Diaz got 121 months for the elaborate scheme framing his ex-fiancée.
Federal sentencing guidelines start at a base offense level, then apply enhancements for threats, multiple victims, violations of protective orders, targeting minors. Your criminal history matters – no prior record means a lower range than multiple felony convictions. Acceptance of responsibility matters – plead guilty without minimizing conduct, you get a two or three-level reduction, which translates to months or years off your sentence. Going to trial and losing means no acceptance reduction and judges sentence at the high end.
Federal Prosecutors Stack Related Charges – Cyberstalking Plus False Statements Plus Obstruction
Cyberstalking rarely comes alone. Scott Robert Tardy faces cyberstalking plus false statements to the FBI plus obstruction of justice. James Florence Jr. got cyberstalking plus child pornography possession. The Florida defendant in November 2024 faced cyberstalking plus unauthorized access to protected computers plus aggravated identity theft. Each stacked charge increases your potential sentence exponentially.
18 USC 875(c) makes it a federal crime to transmit in interstate commerce any communication containing a threat to injure another person – five years maximum, $250,000 fine. If your cyberstalking includes explicit threats, prosecutors charge both statutes. Those sentences run consecutively, not concurrently. Wire fraud, identity theft, unauthorized computer access, obstruction charges – federal prosecutors add every applicable charge to pressure plea agreements.
Once FBI Contacts You, Stay Silent
Scott Robert Tardy faces false statements charges because he lied to FBI agents during their cyberstalking investigation – a separate felony under 18 USC 1001. If he’d refused to answer questions, he wouldn’t face that charge. People think talking to the FBI makes problems go away. It doesn’t, it adds charges.
FBI agents will ask about your communications, your online activity, your intentions. Every answer locks you into a position. If your answer conflicts with digital evidence they already have – and they have all your messages, IP addresses, account logs – you’ve committed another federal crime.
The only correct response is: “I’m invoking my right to remain silent and I want my attorney.” Don’t explain. Don’t provide context. The FBI isn’t helping you – they’re building a case.
Digital evidence in cyberstalking is overwhelming. Email headers show sender IP addresses. Social media platforms log every message, every login, every action. Phone records document every text. If you sent the messages, prosecutors prove it. Lying adds charges.
If you’re under federal investigation for cyberstalking – FBI contacted you, you received a subpoena, law enforcement executed a search warrant – get a federal criminal defense attorney immediately. At Spodek Law Group, we’ve handled federal cases others said were unwinnable. We understand how federal investigations work, what prosecutors look for, how to protect your rights from the first moment. Call us 24/7.