Doxing Crimes

Defending Against Federal "Doxing" Crimes (Title 18 U.S. Code § 119)

The act of broadcasting an individual's private information online, commonly known as "doxing," has evolved significantly with the growth of digital communication.

It's more than just an internet taboo--in a growing number of states, it's illegal, especially when done with the intent of harassing or endangering the person.

And under 18 U.S.C. § 119, when the target is an individual protected under federal law, it becomes a federal felony offense. A conviction under this statute may result in substantial imprisonment and other penalties.

In our experience, while prosecutors must prove specific criminal intent, the fact is that by the time you're charged, they have already accumulated a great deal of evidence against you in their investigation.

A charge does not automatically lead to a conviction, but securing a strong legal team with direct experience in federal criminal defense is critical to protecting your rights and future.

If you are under investigation for, or have been charged with, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 119, Eisner Gorin LLP can work on your behalf to minimize the damage and get you the best outcome possible. To schedule a consultation with our team, call (818) 781-1570 or contact us here.

Below, we provide a detailed breakdown of the legal definitions, the government's burden of proof regarding intent, and potential legal defenses.

What Is Federal Criminal Doxing under 18 U.S.C. § 119?

18 U.S.C. § 119 is a precisely worded statute that addresses specific conduct. It is not a general prohibition against publishing information online. To understand what constitutes a federal doxing offense, let us examine its core elements.

Statutory Definition

The law prohibits a person from knowingly making restricted personal information about a covered person (or an immediate family member of that covered person) publicly available under specific circumstances. The statute requires that the disclosure be made with either:

1. The intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a federal crime of violence against that covered person.
2. The intent and knowledge that the information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a federal crime of violence against that person.

Simply posting information is insufficient for a conviction; the prosecution must prove this specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Scope of the Law

This statute is narrowly focused; it does not create a blanket prohibition on sharing information about any individual. Its protections apply exclusively to a defined list of "covered persons" and their immediate family members.

This list primarily comprises federal officials, law enforcement personnel, jurors, and witnesses involved in the federal justice system.

The law is designed to safeguard the integrity of government and judicial processes by protecting these individuals from harassment, intimidation, and violence.

Distinction from State Laws

Several states have enacted their own laws to address doxing. For example, California's Doxing Victims Recourse Act provides civil remedies to victims, allowing them to seek damages.

Other states may have criminal statutes that cover broader forms of online harassment. In contrast, 18 U.S.C. § 119 is a specific federal tool.

It is not a general-purpose anti-doxing law but a focused instrument designed to protect federal officers, employees, and participants in the justice system from a particular type of threat.

As a federal felony offense, a conviction carries significantly more severe consequences than many state-level misdemeanors or civil actions.

Who Counts as a “Covered Person”?

In essence, a “covered person” is effectively anyone the federal government sees as needing some form of government protection to perform their functions, including most government employees, judges, law enforcement officers, and even jurors and witnesses in court.

The protections of U.S.C. 119 do not apply to the general public, but they are specifically reserved for individuals defined as "covered persons."

The law is intended to protect individuals involved in the administration of federal justice and in government operations from intimidation and violence.

The definition of a "covered person" incorporates several categories of federal officials and participants. The list of protected individuals includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Federal judges, including magistrates and bankruptcy judges.
• Federal law enforcement officers, such as agents of the FBI, DEA, and ATF.
• Grand or petit jurors in any court of the United States.
• Witnesses, victims, and informants in federal criminal investigations or court proceedings.
• Prosecutors and other government attorneys.
• Court officers, such as clerks and probation officers.
• Any officer or employee of the United States, including members of the executive, legislative, or judicial branches.
• State or local law enforcement officers assisting in a federal investigation.

The statute's protection also extends beyond the covered person to include their immediate family members.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 115(c)(2), this category is defined as a person's spouse, parent, sibling, child, or any individual who lives in the same household and is related by blood or marriage. This provision recognizes that threats against a person's family can be a powerful tool for intimidation.

What Is 'Restricted Personal Information'?

Under federal definitions, “restricted personal information” refers to personally identifiable information regarding the person's identity, address, contact information, etc.

A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 119 requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant knowingly made public "restricted personal information."

The statute is very specific about what data falls into this category. It is not a crime under this law to publish any information about a covered person; only the disclosure of specific data points is prohibited.

The types of information defined as "restricted personal information" under the statute include:

• Social Security numbers.
• Home addresses, home phone numbers, and personal mobile phone numbers.
• Personal email addresses.
• Home fax numbers.
• Information about the school or employer of a covered person's immediate family member.

This list is exhaustive. Information that does not fall into these categories may not be considered "restricted" for this specific law, even if its disclosure feels like an invasion of privacy.

For example, publishing a covered person's official government work email, their office address, or their public social media profile would generally not, by itself, constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 119.

However, such actions could be prosecuted under other federal statutes, such as those concerning cyberstalking or threats, if the accompanying conduct meets the elements of those offenses.

The Critical Element: Proving Intent

For a conviction under U.S.C. 119, the simple act of posting restricted personal information is not enough.

The government carries the significant burden of proving that the defendant acted with a specific criminal intent, known in legal terms as mens rea. This element is often the central point of contention in federal doxing cases and provides a critical avenue for a strategic defense.

The prosecutor must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed one of two types of prohibited intent.

Two Types of Prohibited Intent

1. Direct Intent to Threaten or Intimidate: The first type requires the government to prove that the defendant disseminated the information with the specific intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a federal crime of violence against the covered person or their family. This means the posting was not merely careless or negligent; it was a purposeful act intended to create fear or incite violence.
2. Intent to Facilitate a Crime: The second type involves situations where the defendant posts the information with the intent and knowledge that it will be used by a third party to threaten, intimidate, or carry out a crime of violence. Under this theory, the defendant does not need to be the person making the direct threat, but they must have acted with the knowledge that their actions would enable someone else to do so.

The First Amendment Intersection

Cases involving 18 U.S.C. § 119 often intersect with First Amendment protections of free speech. The line between protected political speech, however critical or inflammatory, and a "true threat" is a complex legal boundary.

A defendant may argue that their speech was a form of political protest or commentary, not an act intended to intimidate a federal official or incite violence.

A successful defense often hinges on demonstrating that the defendant's actions, when viewed in context, did not constitute a true threat and are therefore protected under the First Amendment.

Recent Court Cases Involving Federal Doxing Crimes

Two recent cases highlight the application of 18 U.S.C. § 119 in federal courts:

1. United States v. Raygoza, Brown, and Carmona Samane (2025)
   This case involved a two-count indictment for conspiracy and publicly disclosing the personal information of a federal ICE agent. The three defendants allegedly followed the agent home, livestreamed the pursuit, and posted the agent's home address online. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is handling the case, with the defendants facing up to five years in prison per count. This case demonstrates the statute's application in scenarios involving coordinated efforts to intimidate federal officials.
2. United States v. Kaetz (2024)
   Originally charged with threatening to murder a federal judge, defendant William Kaetz pleaded guilty to charges under U.S.C. 119 (for publicly posting the judge's home address) as part of a plea agreement. He was sentenced to 16 months in federal prison. This case illustrates how a doxing offense was used in a plea agreement to avoid a more serious criminal conviction.

What Are the Penalties for Federal Doxing?

A conviction for a federal doxing offense under 18 U.S.C. § 119 constitutes a serious felony that carries severe and life-altering consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

Statutory Maximums

Under the statute itself, someone convicted of doxing a "covered person" under federal law faces:

• Imprisonment: Up to five years in a federal prison.
• Fines: The court may also impose fines of up to $250,000.

The actual sentence imposed will depend on various factors, including the defendant's criminal history and the specifics of the case, as calculated under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Collateral Consequences

Beyond imprisonment and fines, a federal felony conviction has numerous long-term collateral consequences that can affect a person for the rest of their life. These may include:

• Loss of the right to vote.
• Inability to own or possess a firearm.
• Difficulties securing employment, especially in licensed professions.
• Ineligibility for certain federal benefits and housing.
• Damage to one's personal and professional reputation.

Sentence Enhancements

The potential for imprisonment can increase substantially if the doxing act results in further criminal conduct. If a crime of violence is actually committed as a result of the information being made public, prosecutors may file additional charges.

For example, if the act results in an assault on a federal officer, charges under statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 115 (Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official) or conspiracy could be added, exposing the defendant to a substantially longer prison sentence.

Related Federal Statutes

It is a common prosecutorial strategy in federal court to "stack" charges, meaning that a defendant may be indicted on multiple counts arising from a single course of conduct.

When an individual is investigated for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 119, they are often investigated for other related federal offenses as well. A defense attorney must be prepared to address a multi-count indictment that may include:

• 18 U.S.C. § 115 (Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official): This statute criminalizes threatening or causing harm to a federal official or their family in retaliation for the performance of their duties. It often accompanies a doxing charge.
• 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (Cyberstalking): If the doxing is part of a broader course of conduct involving online harassment intended to cause substantial emotional distress, a charge of cyberstalking may be included.
• 18 U.S.C. § 875 (Interstate communications): This law makes it a federal crime to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure another person. A threatening post on a website or social media platform may trigger this charge, along with a doxing allegation.

Facing a combination of these charges significantly increases the complexity of the case and the potential penalties upon conviction.

What Are Some Strategic Defenses Against Federal Doxing Charges?

An indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 119 is a formidable challenge, but it is not an automatic conviction. The complexity of the statute, particularly its requirement for specific intent, provides several avenues for a robust legal defense.

An experienced federal criminal defense law firm will employ a team approach to combat these charges. Attorneys will meticulously examine the government's evidence and build a strategy tailored to the facts of the case. Common defenses include the following:

• Challenging Intent: The prosecution must prove the defendant acted with specific intent to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate a crime. A key defense is to argue that the government cannot meet this high burden of proof because the information was shared for other legitimate purposes, such as news reporting or political commentary.
• Information in the Public Domain: The statute criminalizes publishing "restricted personal information." A defense can argue that the information was already publicly available through public records or online sources, meaning the defendant did not disclose private data as defined by the law.
• Mistake of Fact: A conviction requires the defendant to have knowingly published information about a covered person. A mistake of fact defense may apply if the defendant was unaware of the individual's protected status (e.g., not knowing they were a federal witness or juror), thereby lacking the requisite knowledge for a conviction.
• First Amendment Protections: The defense can argue that the defendant's actions constituted protected speech under the First Amendment rather than a "true threat" or incitement to violence. This requires a nuanced analysis to distinguish between constitutionally protected political expression and conduct that crosses the line into criminal intimidation.

Protect Your Future: The Importance of Counsel

Facing an investigation or charge for a federal doxing crime places your freedom and future at significant risk.

The penalties for doxing under federal law include up to five years in federal prison, substantial fines, and the lifelong consequences of a federal felony record.

The federal court system is a complex and challenging environment, governed by intricate rules of procedure and evidence that differ significantly from state courts. Navigating it without experienced legal representation is a mistake that could cost you years.

The value of an attorney with specific experience in federal criminal defense is more than most people realize.

A general practitioner may not possess the detailed knowledge required to dissect a federal indictment, challenge the government's evidence on intent, or litigate complex First Amendment issues.

You need a legal team that understands the nuances of 18 U.S.C. § 119 and related statutes, has experience before federal judges, and knows how to counter the strategies of federal prosecutors.

If federal agents have contacted you, you have received a subpoena, or you have been charged with a federal doxing offense, the time to act is now.

Every decision you make can have a lasting impact on the outcome of your case. Secure your future and defend your rights by getting experienced legal help right away.

Contact our firm at (818) 781-1570 or here to schedule a confidential consultation and begin building the strategic defense you need. Eisner Gorin LLP is located in Los Angeles.

Related Content:

• Defense of Public Officials