When Do Text Messages Become a Crime in Arizona?

Understanding Electronic Harassment Laws

Text messages are part of everyday life. They are also one of the most common pieces of evidence in criminal cases. When emotions run high—during breakups, family conflicts, or disputes between people who know each other—communication often becomes heated. Many people assume that if a message is angry, vulgar, or upsetting, it must automatically be a crime.

That assumption is understandable. It is also often wrong.

Arizona law draws a very specific legal line between behavior that is inappropriate or uncomfortable and behavior that is criminal. As a criminal defense attorney practicing in Tucson and Pima County, I regularly see cases where text messages play a central role. Some of those cases involve conduct that clearly crosses the line into criminal harassment. Others do not—even when the messages sound alarming at first glance.

This article explains how Arizona law treats electronic harassment, what prosecutors must actually prove in court, and why not every disturbing text message leads to a criminal conviction.

Electronic Harassment Under Arizona Law

Electronic harassment in Arizona is governed by Arizona Revised Statute § 13-2916. While the statute covers several different forms of conduct, one subsection is commonly charged in cases involving text messages, emails, and social media communications.

In general terms, the law criminalizes the use of electronic communication to knowingly terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or disturb a specific person. But that broad description can be misleading. The statute does not punish every unpleasant interaction. Instead, it requires proof of very specific elements.

To obtain a conviction, the State must prove that the defendant engaged in repeated electronic communications that were anonymous, unwanted, or unsolicited, and that those communications disturbed the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of the person who received them. The law also defines harassment as a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider seriously alarming, disruptive, tormenting, or terrorizing, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

Each word in that definition matters. Courts do not look only at how the recipient felt. They look at how the communication occurred, who received it, what it said, how often it happened, and whether it fits the statute as written.

Why Who Receives the Message Matters

One of the most important—and least understood—parts of Arizona’s electronic harassment law is the focus on who actually receives the electronic communication.

The statute does not criminalize messages simply because they are about someone. It focuses on messages that are received by the person whose peace or privacy is allegedly disturbed. That distinction can be critical in real cases.

From a legal standpoint, there is a difference between a message sent directly to someone’s phone or social media account and a message sent to a third party, even if the message is about the same person. Arizona law is written around the act of using electronic communication to disturb the peace of the person who receives it at the place where it is received.

This means that courts look closely at the path of the communication. Did the alleged victim receive the message directly from the sender? Or did they learn about it later, secondhand, from someone else? That difference can affect whether the statutory elements are satisfied.

This distinction often surprises people. Emotionally, learning about a message indirectly can feel just as upsetting as receiving it directly. Legally, however, the statute is concerned with direct electronic contact. Judges are required to apply the law as written, not as it might feel in a particular situation.

Not Every Upsetting Message Is Criminal Harassment

Another common misconception is that profanity, accusations, or emotionally charged language automatically make a message criminal. Arizona law does not work that way.

The statute expressly excludes constitutionally protected speech. Courts are careful not to criminalize speech simply because it is offensive, angry, or upsetting. The First Amendment protects a wide range of expression, including speech that many people would find inappropriate or offensive.

For a message to rise to the level of criminal harassment, it must go beyond rude or emotional language. Courts look for conduct that a reasonable person would view as seriously alarming, disruptive, tormenting, or terrorizing. They also examine whether the communication constitutes a true threat, meaning a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence.

Vague statements, contradictory language, or emotionally charged venting often fall short of that standard. The law distinguishes between genuine threats and expressions of anger or frustration that, while unpleasant, are not criminal.

This is particularly important in cases involving former partners or family members, where emotions can run high and language can escalate quickly. Criminal courts are not designed to punish every argument or bad breakup. They are designed to address conduct that meets specific legal thresholds.

The Requirement of Repeated Conduct

Electronic harassment under Arizona law generally requires more than a single message. The statute refers to a course of conduct, meaning repeated communications that together demonstrate harassment or intimidation.

Courts look at the overall pattern, not just isolated statements. They consider how many messages were sent, how close together they were, whether the recipient attempted to stop the contact, and whether the messages escalated over time.

One message, even if unpleasant, often does not meet the statutory requirement on its own. Repetition is a key factor in distinguishing criminal harassment from isolated communication.

This does not mean that every repeated message is criminal. The content, intent, and context of the communication still matter. But repetition is an essential part of the analysis, and its absence can be significant in defending these cases.

Screenshots and Electronic Evidence Are Not Automatically Proof

In the age of smartphones, screenshots are often treated as conclusive evidence. In reality, screenshots are just the beginning of the legal analysis.

Before electronic messages can be relied upon in court, the State must establish proper foundation. This includes showing who sent the message, who received it, and that the screenshot accurately reflects the original communication. Courts also look at whether the message was altered, taken out of context, or forwarded from another source.

Police reports frequently summarize what someone claims a message said. However, a police report is not evidence of guilt. Judges require proper authentication and admissibility before relying on electronic communications.

These evidentiary requirements are especially important in bench trials, where judges act as both the finder of fact and the arbiter of law. The technical details of how a message was sent and received often matter just as much as the content itself.

Criminal Charges Are Different From Orders of Protection

Many people encounter electronic harassment issues in the context of Orders of Protection. While related, civil protective orders and criminal charges serve different purposes and have different legal standards.

An Order of Protection is a civil remedy designed to prevent future contact. It can be granted based on a lower standard of proof and is focused on safety and prevention. A criminal charge, by contrast, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific crime occurred.

It is possible for conduct to justify a civil protective order while still falling short of criminal harassment under Arizona law. Understanding that distinction is important for anyone navigating the legal system in these situations.

Why These Cases Are Highly Fact-Specific

Electronic harassment cases are rarely straightforward. Judges examine the details carefully, including who communicated with whom, how the messages were delivered, what was actually said, and whether the conduct fits the precise wording of the statute.

Emotional reactions alone do not determine criminal liability. The law requires objective proof of specific elements, and courts are bound to apply those elements consistently.

This is why outcomes in text-message-based cases can vary widely, even when the messages sound similar. Context, recipient, repetition, and intent all play a role.

What This Means If You Are Facing Charges

If you are facing an electronic harassment charge in Tucson or Pima County, it is important to understand that not every upsetting or aggressive message is a crime. The State must meet a specific burden of proof, and many cases turn on details that are not obvious at first glance.

An experienced criminal defense attorney can review the evidence, analyze the statutory elements, and determine whether the charge truly fits the law. In some cases, charges are dismissed or reduced because the evidence does not satisfy the legal requirements of A.R.S. § 13-2916.

Final Thoughts

Text messages are powerful pieces of evidence, but they are not self-explanatory. Arizona’s electronic harassment law is nuanced, and courts apply it carefully. Understanding the difference between inappropriate communication and criminal conduct is essential for anyone involved in these cases.

If you have questions about an electronic harassment charge or want to better understand your legal options, speaking with a qualified criminal defense attorney can provide clarity and guidance.

This article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The scenarios discussed are hypothetical and are not based on any specific client matter.