Terroristic Threats in PA: Penalties, Restitution & Defenses

In Pennsylvania, terroristic threats are defined by 18 Pa. C.S. § 2706 as communicated threats of violence made to terrorize another person, to force an evacuation of a building or public place, or to cause serious public inconvenience — including threats made with reckless disregard for causing that kind of fear or disruption.¹ The offense is graded as a first-degree misdemeanor carrying up to five years in prison, or a third-degree felony carrying up to seven years if the threat actually disrupted normal activities at a building, gathering place, or transit facility. A conviction can also bring mandatory restitution, a federal firearms ban, civil liability, and problems with professional licensing.

What Counts as a Terroristic Threat

The statute reaches three kinds of communication. Threatening to commit any violent crime with the intent to terrorize another person. Threatening to force an evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or public transportation facility. And causing serious public inconvenience, or acting in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror or major disruption.¹

That third category is where people get caught. You don’t need to have wanted to frighten anyone. If you consciously ignored an obvious risk that your words would cause terror or serious public disruption, that’s enough. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld this reading, ruling that the First Amendment permits convictions for threatening statements made with reckless disregard of the risk of causing fear, without proof of a specific intent to intimidate.²

Two Things Prosecutors Don’t Have To Prove

Prosecutors do not have to prove you could actually carry out the threat. They also do not have to prove the person on the receiving end was actually afraid. The offense is complete once the threatening communication is made with the required mental state. A bomb threat called into a school qualifies even if you had no bomb and the administrator recognized your voice and didn’t believe a word of it.

How the Threat Was Communicated

“Communicates” is defined broadly. It covers statements made in person, in writing, or through any electronic method, including phone calls, emails, internet messages, faxes, and similar transmissions.¹ Social media posts, text messages, direct messages, and voicemails all fit. So do indirect threats. Telling a coworker “tell your boss I’m going to burn that place down” is enough.

Misdemeanor or Felony

A terroristic threat starts as a first-degree misdemeanor. The charge rises to a third-degree felony when the threat causes occupants of a building, place of assembly, or public transit facility to be diverted from their normal operations.¹ The key word is “diverted.” If a school locks down, a courthouse clears out, or a transit line reroutes because of the threat, the charge is a felony regardless of how quickly things returned to normal.

A threat texted to an ex-partner that never disrupts any public space stays a misdemeanor. The same language posted online naming a specific school and triggering even a brief lockdown becomes a felony. Prosecutors don’t have to show you intended the disruption, only that the disruption happened because of your threat.

Prison Time and Fines

The statutory maximums are:

Those are ceilings. Actual sentences depend on the sentencing guidelines, prior record, and the specific facts. Courts can also impose probation with conditions like no-contact orders, mental health treatment, or community service.

Mandatory Restitution for Emergency Response

When a threat leads to an evacuation, the court must order restitution on top of any other sentence. That includes the full cost of the emergency response — police, fire, emergency medical services, emergency preparedness response, and the costs of transporting people out of the affected building or facility.¹ The statute makes this mandatory, not discretionary.

The amounts add up quickly. A threat that triggers a multi-agency response at a large school or transit hub can generate restitution obligations of tens of thousands of dollars once overtime pay, hazmat screening, and lost operational time are counted. Restitution is a debt owed to the responding agencies and cannot be discharged through standard bankruptcy proceedings.

Civil Lawsuits on Top of the Criminal Case

The statute explicitly preserves private civil remedies. A person harmed by a terroristic threat can file a separate civil lawsuit for additional damages, with any award reduced by the amount already paid through criminal restitution.¹ A business that lost revenue during a threat-related shutdown, or an individual who suffered severe emotional distress, can pursue damages separately in civil court.

How Long Prosecutors Have To File

The statute of limitations is five years. Pennsylvania lists terroristic threats among the “major offenses” that carry an extended limitations period, longer than the default two-year window for most crimes.⁶ The clock starts when the threat is communicated. An online post from three years ago is still fair game.

Losing the Right To Own a Firearm

Section 2706 is not listed among the Pennsylvania offenses that carry a state firearms disqualification under 18 Pa. C.S. § 6105.⁷ Federal law fills the gap. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), anyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.⁸

Both grades of terroristic threats exceed that threshold. A first-degree misdemeanor carries a five-year maximum and a third-degree felony carries a seven-year maximum, so either conviction triggers the federal ban. The federal exemption for state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less doesn’t help, because Pennsylvania’s first-degree misdemeanor ceiling is five years. This catches many defendants by surprise, especially those who assume a misdemeanor won’t affect gun rights.

Sealing the Record Later

Pennsylvania’s Clean Slate law allows automatic and petition-based sealing of certain criminal records. A misdemeanor terroristic threats conviction becomes eligible for sealing after ten years free of any conviction and after all financial obligations tied to the sentence are satisfied. Some second- and third-degree felony convictions may be eligible for petition-based sealing after ten years, but eligibility depends on the specific offense and the person’s overall record. Sealing hides the conviction from most background checks but does not erase it from law enforcement databases. The rules have been updated multiple times since the law’s passage in 2018, so anyone considering this path should confirm current eligibility with the court.

Professional Licensing Consequences

A conviction can affect state-regulated professional licenses across fields like nursing, teaching, real estate, and cosmetology. Under Pennsylvania’s Act 53 of 2020, licensing boards within the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs cannot deny a license based on vague standards like “good moral character.” Each board must publish a list of criminal offenses directly related to its profession, and only those offenses can serve as grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation.⁹

Applicants unsure whether a conviction will block their license can request a preliminary determination before submitting a full application. Even if a board finds the conviction directly related to the profession, that finding doesn’t automatically bar licensure; the board can still grant the license with conditions like probation or practice restrictions.⁹ A felony conviction tied to a threat that disrupted a school or workplace will face significantly more scrutiny than an older misdemeanor.

Defenses and Constitutional Limits

Not every statement that sounds threatening qualifies under this statute. Pennsylvania courts have recognized that off-the-cuff remarks made in the heat of the moment may not rise to criminal conduct, but the cases are highly fact-specific. The critical question is whether prosecutors can prove the required mental state: a specific intent to terrorize or force evacuation, or reckless disregard of the risk that the statement would cause terror or disruption.

Defense work often focuses on context. A frustrated comment during an argument (“I could kill you right now”) carries different weight than a detailed threat delivered in writing to a specific target. First Amendment arguments are available but narrower than they used to be. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the Constitution permits convictions under this statute even when the speaker didn’t specifically intend to cause fear, as long as prosecutors prove the speaker consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the statement would terrorize others.²

Recklessness under Pennsylvania law asks whether the speaker’s disregard of the risk represents a gross deviation from how a reasonable person would have behaved in the same situation. That’s a lower bar than proving the speaker wanted to frighten someone, and it’s the standard that makes angry social media posts, voicemails, and “jokes” about violence a genuine criminal exposure.

1
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code 18 – Section 2706
2
Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Opinion J-84-2020
3
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code 18 – Section 1104
4
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code 18 – Section 1101
5
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code 18 – Section 1103
6
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code 42 – Section 5552
7
Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code 18 – Section 6105
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 – Unlawful Acts
9
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Act 53 of 2020 Best Practices Guide