In February 2025, 18-year-old Alan Filion of Lancaster, California, was sentenced to four years in federal prison for perpetrating one of the most prolific “swatting” sprees in U.S. history. Between August 2022 and January 2024, Filion made at least 375 hoax calls to law enforcement agencies across the country. His targets included schools, places of worship, private homes and government buildings. Though he relied on synthesized voices and spoofed numbers for anonymity, he also often live-streamed his illegal activities to online followers. Authorities say he left a trail of fear, confusion and trauma in his wake.
Filion’s conviction marks a turning point of sorts in how swatting is understood and prosecuted. His case illustrates both the destructive potential of this form of digital crime and the growing resolve among law enforcement to treat swatting as a serious offense. Unfortunately, the epidemic of false emergency calls shows no signs of abating, and experts say tackling it requires not just better technology, but also better training, public awareness and coordinated action.
What Is Swatting?
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), swatting involves deliberately reporting a fabricated emergency with the goal of prompting an armed law enforcement response. In many cases, callers claim to have committed a violent crime or taken hostages. In others, perpetrators express an intention to carry out an imminent attack — all false, all meant to provoke maximum chaos.
The practice initially began within the online gaming community, where disputes between players led to retaliatory swatting. Over the past decade, the practice has broadened. Today, swatting is more likely to target politicians and political pundits, celebrities, journalists, religious communities, school administrators and even everyday citizens. As FBI officials emphasize, these are not harmless pranks — they are criminal acts that tie up public safety resources and place lives at risk.
In 2017, the dangers of swatting were tragically illustrated when 28-year-old Andrew Finch was fatally shot by police in Wichita, Kansas, following a fake report of a hostage situation. The caller, acting over a petty dispute related to the Call of Duty videogame, had never even met Finch and had no direct connection to his intended victim. The aftermath sparked widespread calls for reform, but the trend has only escalated. Swatting perpetrators often work hard to stay anonymous and elusive, taking advantage of advanced technology both to hide their identities and cover their tracks.
A Call to Action
During the 2025 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Tech Conference, Keven Hendricks, a law enforcement veteran from the New Brunswick, New Jersey Police Department, delivered a compelling presentation titled “Swatting and False Emergency Call Investigations.” Drawing on his 18 years in law enforcement, including cybercrime training with both the FBI and DEA, Hendricks doesn’t mince words: “These are real crimes, and you can investigate them,” he tells the audience. “We often dismiss them as nuisances because they cross jurisdictions or involve technologies that feel unfamiliar. But we’re letting perpetrators off the hook by not trying.”
Hendricks himself has been a victim of swatting. After participating in a documentary on hoax school shooting calls, a notorious swatter targeted him and his family. His personal experience only underscores his professional message: Swatting must be addressed with urgency, clarity and collaboration.
“Swatting is not just about wasting time or causing a scare. It’s about weaponizing our public safety systems. It’s attempted murder by cop.”
The Threat Landscape
The motivations behind swatting vary, but none are benign. Common justifications include:
- Harassment: Swatting often begins as an attempt to silence or punish individuals the perpetrators view as deserving.
- Retaliation: Often seen in online communities or personal feuds, retaliatory swatting incidents often stem from an attempt to right perceived wrongs.
- Political or ideological targets: As Hendricks notes, swatters have targeted political figures, synagogues, LGBTQ+ events, and more.
- Attention-seeking: Some perpetrators livestream swattings or post them on social media to get a dopamine hit.
- Financial gain: In some cases, swatters offer “services” for hire through encrypted apps like Telegram.
Regardless of motive, the consequences are consistent: danger, trauma, wasted resources and potential loss of life. Innocent people are yanked from their homes at gunpoint. Children look on in horror as their parents are handcuffed. Elderly residents wind up confused and terrified. Officers responding in good faith are thrown into volatile situations that could spiral into violence in a split second.
Hendricks shared stories of cases involving religious institutions and minority communities. In one instance, a synagogue received multiple bomb threats from the same individual, who had similarly targeted other places of worship nationwide. “That’s not a prank,” Hendricks says. “That’s a hate crime.”
Swatting also disrupts the operations of emergency services. Responding to hoaxes consumes manpower, diverts police and EMS from real calls, and places enormous strain on public safety infrastructure. As the 911.gov National Program notes, large-scale swatting incidents have even delayed life-saving responses in other areas.
Technological Challenges in Investigating Swatting
Gone are the days when prank calls were made from payphones or physical “burner phones.” Today’s swatters use a sophisticated array of tools:
- VoIP apps (TextNow, Google Voice, Burner): Allow users to make “local” voice calls over the internet, often from anywhere in the world.
- Caller ID spoofing: Falsifies the caller’s number, sometimes making it look like a legitimate number from the victim’s neighborhood or even the local police department.
- VPNs and anonymizing browsers: VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) mask a user’s IP address. Browser tools like Tor make it difficult for authorities or ISPs to trace internet activity.
- Throwaway email accounts: Often created via services such as ProtonMail or Tutanota, these anonymous accounts can be used to register VoIP numbers and send threats.
- AI-generated voices and soundboards: Perpetrators can use text-to-speech tools or AI software to mimic voices or simulate background noise like gunfire.
- Swatting by proxy: A newer tactic in which a swatter makes threats or false claims to a third party such as a suicide or domestic violence hotline, which then contacts the police on their behalf — unwittingly facilitating the hoax.
Hendricks debunks the myth that these tactics make swatters untraceable. While many in law enforcement believe VPN use ends the investigative trail, Hendricks notes that mistakes are common. “People forget to turn their VPNs on, or they verify accounts with their real phone numbers,” he says. “You just have to keep digging.”
By requesting and correlating call logs, email verification records and IP addresses, law enforcement can connect digital breadcrumbs. For example, one perpetrator who used a VoIP number for a swatting call had also used that same number to sign up for a DoorDash account, leading to a breakthrough in the case.
Training and Operational Readiness
A key thrust of Hendricks’ presentation was the need for robust training at all levels of law enforcement. Directly on the front lines of identifying potential swatting calls are public safety dispatchers. According to Hendricks, these personnel must be trained to recognize the key red flags of swatting:
- Unnatural or robotic-sounding voices.
- Callers who refuse to provide callback information.
- Vague or inconsistent details about the alleged emergency.
- Overuse of certain key phrases, like “I just shot my wife” or “There are bombs all over the house.”
Hendricks advises law enforcement agencies to develop procedures to help detect swatting attempts and reduce the dangers associated with swatting. These should address everything from dispatcher questions to on-scene de-escalation techniques. Personnel should be trained to confirm reports through alternate means, when possible, especially when calls lack corroborating details.
Departments should also ensure all calls — especially suspicious ones — are recorded and preserved. Call recordings can help reveal patterns, such as repeated scripts used across multiple jurisdictions. Swatters frequently reuse templates, tweaking only names and locations.
Also, collaboration across jurisdictions is crucial. Agencies should leverage resources like the FBI’s Virtual Command Center (VCC), the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), and regional fusion centers to share intelligence. Swatters, Hendricks says, “don’t care about jurisdiction…. They’ll call 50 departments in 10 states. If we’re not connecting the dots, they win.”
Community Education and Engagement
Prevention efforts should also involve people and resources outside the department. Community members — especially those at heightened risk — should be educated on what swatting is and what to do if they suspect they are (or could be) a target. Public outreach campaigns may include presentations in schools, gaming conventions, political or activist organizations, and houses of worship.
Some law enforcement agencies now offer voluntary registration for likely targets. For example, prominent livestreamers can alert their local dispatch center and provide alternate contact information. This allows officers to verify reports of violence before deploying tactical teams.
Hendricks emphasized the need for communication with minority and marginalized communities, who are often at increased risk of bias-motivated swatting. Law enforcement must be prepared to recognize these as potential hate crimes and not dismiss them as harmless mischief.
Schools, too, should be engaged. With the recent increase in hoax school shooting threats, districts must have plans in place for responding to these events — including coordination with local law enforcement, mental health providers and communication staff to avoid panic.
Legal Tools and Gaps
The legal framework around swatting remains fragmented. At the federal level, prosecutors can rely on statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 1038 (false information and hoaxes), but it’s up to individual states to create more specific laws.
Some states, including California and Florida, have passed anti-swatting legislation that classifies false emergency reporting as a felony. Others jurisdictions have no such laws, complicating efforts to prosecute offenders — especially when they’re juveniles.
Hendricks calls for the creation of uniform state-level laws with enhanced penalties when swatting causes injury, involves hate or bias, or targets vulnerable populations. He also supports juvenile accountability reforms. “We’re not talking about locking kids up forever,” he says. “But we need to send a message that this isn’t funny. It’s criminal.”
Additional public policy recommendations include:
- Requiring tech companies (VoIP, messaging and VPN providers) to preserve and disclose data promptly in response to legal requests.
- Mandating that all swatting incidents be reported to national tracking systems.
- Standardizing data retention policies for 911 call recordings and dispatch logs.
Earlier this year, during a rash of politically motivated swatting calls in the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Utah Senator Mike Lee took to X to pose the question: “Should swatting be prosecuted as attempted murder?” Sen. Lee continued: “If you send heavily armed men to someone’s house with a false assertion that a violent crime is being committed there, you’re creating a grave risk that an innocent person will get shot.” It’s a perspective on swatting that many (both inside and outside of law enforcement) share.
The ”Preserving Safe Communities by Ending Swatting Act” was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2023, but never advanced for consideration. A similar bill was recently introduced in the Senate, but it remains to be seen whether Congress will actually move forward with meaningful action on this issue.
More Than Just a Nuisance
Despite the primarily digital nature of swatting, its impacts are intensely human. The trauma inflicted by these false reports is often deep and lasting. The fear instilled in communities erodes trust in law enforcement. The wasted resources weaken public safety agencies’ ability to respond to real emergencies.
As Hendricks sums up, “Swatting is not just about wasting time or causing a scare. It’s about weaponizing our public safety systems. It’s attempted murder by cop.”
Addressing this crime requires a combination of awareness, training, legal clarity and technological readiness. When they treat swatting seriously, law enforcement agencies empower their staff, engage their communities and position themselves to prevent tragedy.
“The next victim might be a cop. It might be a child. It might be you,” Hendricks warns. For law enforcement leaders, policymakers, and citizens alike, the takeaway is clear: swatting is more than just a nuisance. It’s a call to action.
