Fake Bomb Threat Charge: Federal Prison and State Penalties

A fake bomb threat charge is a felony under both federal and state law, and the penalties are severe: up to 10 years in federal prison under one statute, up to life under another if someone dies during the response, fines reaching $250,000, mandatory reimbursement of every dollar spent on the emergency response, and a permanent felony record that closes off firearms, many jobs, and housing.

Federal Prison Time

Two federal statutes cover false bomb threats, and which one the prosecutor chooses shapes the sentence.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 844(e), anyone who uses the mail, telephone, internet, or any other tool of interstate commerce to convey false information about destroying property or harming people with fire or explosives faces up to 10 years in federal prison, a fine, or both. There are no injury or death escalators built into this section.¹

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1038, the base sentence is lower but the ceiling is much higher:

Up to 5 years if no one is hurt.
Up to 20 years if someone suffers serious bodily injury during the response.
Any number of years up to life if someone dies.²

The injury and death tiers deserve attention. A hoax that triggers a panicked evacuation where someone is trampled, has a heart attack, or crashes a car fleeing the area can push a sentence from 5 years to 20, even though the defendant never touched anyone. The connection between the false threat and the resulting harm is what drives the escalator.

Federal fines run up to $250,000 for any individual felony conviction under the general fine statute.³ Prosecutors sometimes charge under both § 844(e) and § 1038, or pick between them based on which penalty structure fits the case.

The Reimbursement Order and Civil Lawsuits

The financial side of a § 1038 conviction is often more devastating than the fine. The statute uses the word “shall” — the judge has no discretion. Upon sentencing, the court must order the defendant to reimburse every state or local government agency and every nonprofit fire or rescue organization that incurred costs responding to the hoax.²

A single threat to a school or airport can easily generate six-figure response costs. Bomb squads, K-9 units, hazmat teams, police overtime, helicopter deployment, and facility closures all get billed back to the defendant. When multiple agencies respond across jurisdictions, the total climbs fast. The reimbursement order is enforced as a civil judgment, which means agencies can pursue it through wage garnishment and asset seizure long after the prison sentence ends.²

Section 1038(b) also creates a separate civil cause of action. Any party that spent money on the response can sue: businesses that lost revenue from an evacuation, hospitals that treated injuries, schools that paid for security lockdowns. That civil exposure exists whether or not criminal charges are filed.

State Charges

Federal prosecutors take the case when the threat targets federal property, crosses state lines, or uses an interstate communication channel. Because phone networks and the internet are interstate by nature, federal jurisdiction attaches easily even when the target is a local school or business.¹

Threats that stay within one state and target local facilities are usually prosecuted under state law. Most states classify a false bomb threat as a felony. Prison ranges commonly fall between 2 and 15 years depending on the state and circumstances, with higher sentences when the target is a school or hospital, when a mass evacuation resulted, or when the defendant has priors. State fines range from a few thousand dollars to well into six figures, and many states impose their own restitution requirements separate from the federal reimbursement mandate.

The same threat can produce both state and federal charges without triggering double jeopardy, because state and federal governments are treated as separate sovereigns. In practice, whichever jurisdiction can bring the more serious charge tends to take the lead.

What the Prosecution Has to Prove

The government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements overlap across the two federal statutes:

A communication happened. The defendant conveyed information about an explosive device, bombing, or similar destructive act to another person or entity. A phone call, text, email, note, or social media post all qualify.
The information was false. Under § 844(e), the government must show the defendant “maliciously” conveyed information “knowing the same to be false.” Under § 1038, the standard is that the defendant acted “with intent to convey false or misleading information.”²
Under § 1038, the information had to be conveyed under circumstances where it could reasonably be believed. A statement so absurd no one would take it seriously may not meet this element.
Under § 844(e), the threat traveled through an interstate channel: mail, phone, internet, or similar.¹

Most defenses focus on mental state. Someone who genuinely thought a suspicious package was a bomb and reported it in good faith has not committed this crime. The law targets deliberate deception, not honest mistakes.

“I Was Just Joking” Is Not Much of a Defense

The First Amendment does not protect bomb threats. In Counterman v. Colorado, decided in 2023, the Supreme Court held that the government must prove the defendant had some subjective awareness that the statement could be perceived as threatening, but recklessness is enough. Prosecutors do not have to prove the defendant specifically wanted to frighten anyone; it’s sufficient to show the defendant “consciously disregarded a substantial risk” that the communication would be viewed as threatening.⁴

Under that standard, claiming a threat was a joke rarely works. If the defendant knew a reasonable person could take the words seriously and sent them anyway, the recklessness threshold is met. Courts look at the full context: the words, the medium, and whether the message produced a real emergency response.

Life After a Conviction

Prison and fines are the front end. A felony bomb-threat conviction follows a person through the rest of their life.

Firearms. Federal law permanently bars anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from possessing any firearm or ammunition. Both § 844(e) and § 1038 clear that threshold, so a conviction triggers a lifetime firearms ban.⁵
Employment. A felony involving threats or explosives is among the hardest to overcome in background checks. Education, healthcare, government, finance, and any position needing a security clearance are effectively closed.
Housing. Most landlords run background checks, and a violent or threat-related felony is a common disqualifier.
Professional licensing. State boards for attorneys, doctors, accountants, and similar professions routinely deny or revoke licenses over felony convictions.
Immigration. Non-citizens face possible deportation. Felonies involving threats of violence are generally treated as serious grounds for removal.

Expungement is difficult. Many states exclude violent or threat-related felonies from their expungement statutes entirely. Federal convictions have no general expungement mechanism at all; the only path is a presidential pardon.

When the Accused Is a Minor

Many bomb threats target schools, and many come from juveniles. Being underage does not shrink the case. Minors face detention in a juvenile facility, extended probation, mandatory counseling, community service, and restitution orders.

In many states, 16- and 17-year-olds can be charged as adults for a felony bomb threat, which exposes them to the same prison sentences and fines as adults. Even when a case stays in juvenile court, the record can follow the minor into adulthood and affect college admissions, military enlistment, and future employment. Federal prosecutors can also bring charges against minors in certain circumstances, particularly when the threat crossed state lines or targeted federal property. A threat framed as a prank should be treated as a genuine legal crisis from the first phone call.

1
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 844 – Penalties
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1038 – False Information and Hoaxes
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3571 – Sentence of Fine
4
Supreme Court of the United States. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)
5
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 – Unlawful Acts