Campus Alert Archive
Lehigh

Hoax active-shooter call prompts five alerts in 68 minutes, ending in all-clear

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
PAswattingemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Confirmed HoaxDetermined to be a hoax. The institutional response is documented because it reveals how the alert system performed under a perceived real threat.

On the evening of May 7, 2023, a hoax 911 call reported an active shooter at "the main building" at the intersection of East Packer Avenue and Webster Street on Lehigh's Asa Packer campus. The Lehigh University Police Department issued five HawkWatch alerts between 9:43 PM EDT and 10:51 PM EDT, beginning with a Run-Hide-Fight directive and ending with an all-clear that confirmed the report was a hoax. The case became part of the May 2023 wave of college campus swatting incidents that also hit the University of Pittsburgh, Rider, Rutgers, and Saint Joseph's.

Alerts
6
Response
—
Killed
0
Injured
0
Institution
Lehigh University
Private R2 · PA
All Lehigh cases →
~7,800 studentsHawkWatch
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

6 messages in sequence · 5 verified verbatim

Confirmed wording is transcribed character-for-character from a primary source. Use Verify this quote under each message to open that source in a new tab and compare the text yourself.

Some messages in this sequence are documented (their existence, timing, and channel are sourced) but their exact wording is not preserved in the public record. Those entries appear as placeholders; only confirmed text is displayed.

INITIAL ALERTPush
Verified verbatim89 chars
There is no active shooter threat detected, please shelter in place until you hear other.
Verify this quote
Lehigh HawkWatch CAP alert id=109450 (May 7, 2023 9:59 p.m.)lehigh.apparmor.comfind archived copies
Sent at 9:43 PM EDT on May 7, 2023, minutes after Northampton County 911 non-emergency received a call reporting an active shooter at 'the main building' on East Packer Avenue between Taylor and Webster streets
The 'main building' reference was geographically ambiguous, since Lehigh's Asa Packer campus has multiple buildings near the East Packer-Webster area including the University Center and Maginnes Hall
UPDATEPush+10 min
Verified verbatim348 chars
Lehigh police continue to investigate the reports of an active shooter that were made to the Northampton County 911 center from outside of the Lehigh community. These reports do not appear to be credible at this time. Out of caution, continue to shelter in place until receiving the all clear as Lehigh and Bethlehem police continue to investigate.
Verify this quote
Lehigh HawkWatch CAP alert id=109451 (May 7, 2023 10:10 p.m.)lehigh.apparmor.comfind archived copies
The shift from Run-Hide-Fight to Shelter-in-Place came after responding officers indicated the threats may not be credible
The protocol shift is itself notable — Lehigh transitioned from active-shooter posture to suspicious-call posture within minutes
UPDATEPush+38 min
Verified verbatim396 chars
Lehigh police continue to investigate reports of an active threat, which do not appear to be credible. Nothing is observed on cameras and there is no credible threat found at the locations reported. Please follow HawkWatch for credible information and do not circulate misinformation on social media to help keep others calm. NO threat can be found / NO danger confirmed. Stand by for updates.
Verify this quote
Lehigh HawkWatch CAP alert id=109452 (May 7, 2023 10:38 p.m.)lehigh.apparmor.comfind archived copies
The third alert maintained the shelter-in-place order while police conducted walking checks of the surrounding area
The phrasing 'no threat confirmed at this time' was carefully hedged, leaving open the possibility of a delayed confirmation rather than declaring a hoax outright
UPDATESMS
Wording not preserved

This message is documented at this point in the sequence, but its exact wording is not preserved in the public record. The public edition displays only confirmed alert text.

ALL CLEARPush+51 min
Verified verbatim687 chars
Lehigh and Bethlehem police have completed their investigation and it is safe to return to normal activity. No credible threat was found or observed and it was a hoax threat only from outside the Lehigh community. All operations may continue as normal. Anyone with concerns or to report an incident, contact LUPD/Campus Safety at (610) 758-4200. For students experiencing distress, counseling resources are available. MySSP: https://studentaffairs.lehigh.edu/content/my-ssp-student-support-program (Available remotely 24/7 in multiple languages.) University Counseling and Psychological Services (UCPS): https://studentaffairs.lehigh.edu/content/counseling-psychological-services-ucps
Verify this quote
Lehigh HawkWatch CAP #109456 (all-clear / hoax)lehigh.apparmor.comfind archived copies
The all-clear was issued at approximately 10:51 PM EDT on May 7, 2023, exactly 68 minutes after the initial alert at 9:43 PM EDT
Lehigh's explicit characterization of the call as a 'hoax threat only from outside the Lehigh community' was relatively direct, many institutions used 'unfounded' or 'no threat found' to avoid an early conclusion
The phrase 'No credible threat was found or observed' is a precise Clery-style construction that addresses both physical sweep results and camera/observational evidence
Lehigh subsequently worked with the FBI and Pennsylvania State Police to identify the caller
INITIAL ALERTPush
Verified verbatim213 chars
An Active Shooter has been reported at Report of an active shooter in the area of West Packer and Webster street.. All individuals are advised to flee if possible, hide if you cannot escape and fight if necessary.
Verify this quote
Lehigh HawkWatch CAP id=109449 Description field (verbatim)lehigh.apparmor.comfind archived copies
Chronologically first HawkWatch CAP of the May 7, 2023 cascade; added as sequence 6 to avoid renumbering already-confirmed sequences 1–5
Wording preserved exactly, including awkward "reported at Report of an active shooter" and double period after "street."
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

There is no active shooter threat detected, please shelter in place until you hear other.

  • Sourceabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: this short fragment names no sender, agency, or branded alert system.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: No sender or agency identified in this short message.
    2. absent: No sender, agency, or branded signature identified in the text.
    3. absent: No sender or authority is identified.
    4. absent: No sender or agency identified in the text.
    5. absent: No sender or authority identified.
    6. absent: No sender or issuing authority named in the text.
    7. absent: No sender or authority identified in the text.
    8. absent: No sender, agency, or branded alert system identified.
    9. absent: No sender name or agency identified
    10. absent: No sender or authority identified in this short message.
    11. absent: No sender or authority identified in the text.
    12. absent: No sender or issuing authority identified.
    13. absent: No named sender or authority given.
    14. absent: No sender or agency identified in the text.
    15. absent: No sender or authority identified in the text.
    16. absent: No sender identity, agency, or branded signature given.
    17. absent: No sender or agency identified in the text
    18. absent: No sender or authority identified.
    19. absent: No sender or agency is identified.
    20. absent: No sender, agency, or branded signature identified in the text.
    21. absent: No sender or authority is named.
    22. absent: No sender or authority identified.
    23. absent: No sender or authority named.
    24. absent: No sender or authority identified in the text.
    25. absent: No sender or authority identified in this fragment.
  • Hazardpresent21/25

    Final assessment

    Majority (21 of 25) credit 'active shooter threat' as naming the hazard even though the message negates it, though several dissented since the threat is explicitly ruled out rather than present.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: References 'active shooter threat', though stating none detected.
    2. present: References "active shooter threat" though stating none detected.
    3. present: References 'active shooter threat', even while negating it.
    4. present: 'active shooter threat' names the hazard, even though negated.
    5. present: References 'active shooter threat' (ruled out).
    6. present: References "active shooter threat" even though negated.
    7. absent: Only negates 'active shooter threat', no hazard actively named as present.
    8. present: References "active shooter threat" though stating none detected.
    9. present: 'active shooter' is named even though denied as a threat
    10. absent: States 'no active shooter threat detected', negating a hazard rather than naming an active one.
    11. present: Names 'active shooter threat' explicitly (though ruled out).
    12. present: 'active shooter threat' named (though negated).
    13. present: 'no active shooter threat detected' names hazard being cleared.
    14. absent: States 'no active shooter threat detected' but does not name a hazard present.
    15. present: References 'active shooter threat' by name, even though ruled out.
    16. present: References 'active shooter threat' by ruling it out.
    17. absent: States 'no active shooter threat detected', not naming a current hazard
    18. present: 'active shooter threat' names the hazard, even though negated as not detected.
    19. present: References "active shooter" threat type even while denying it.
    20. present: States 'active shooter threat' specifically, though clarifying none detected.
    21. present: References 'active shooter threat', though stating none detected.
    22. present: References 'active shooter threat' as the hazard being addressed.
    23. present: References 'active shooter threat' (though ruled not present).
    24. present: References 'active shooter threat' (ruled out).
    25. present: Names 'active shooter threat' (though negated).
  • Locationabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: no building, street, or campus location is given anywhere in the text.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: No location specified.
    2. absent: No specific location given.
    3. absent: No location given.
    4. absent: No location given.
    5. absent: No location given.
    6. absent: No location given.
    7. absent: No location given.
    8. absent: No building, street, or campus reference given.
    9. absent: No specific location named
    10. absent: No location given.
    11. absent: No location given.
    12. absent: No location given.
    13. absent: No location given.
    14. absent: No location given.
    15. absent: No place mentioned in the text.
    16. absent: No location given.
    17. absent: No location given
    18. absent: No location given.
    19. absent: No place is mentioned.
    20. absent: No location given.
    21. absent: No location specified.
    22. absent: No location given.
    23. absent: No location given.
    24. absent: No location given.
    25. absent: No place named.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: the message instructs recipients to shelter in place until further word.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Instructs to 'shelter in place until you hear other'.
    2. present: Instructs "please shelter in place until you hear other".
    3. present: 'please shelter in place until you hear other'.
    4. present: 'please shelter in place until you hear other.'
    5. present: Instructs to 'shelter in place until you hear other'.
    6. present: Instructs "please shelter in place until you hear other."
    7. present: Instructs to 'shelter in place until you hear other'.
    8. present: Instructs "please shelter in place until you hear other".
    9. present: 'please shelter in place until you hear other' instructs action
    10. present: Instructs to 'shelter in place until you hear other'.
    11. present: Instructs to shelter in place until further notice.
    12. present: 'please shelter in place until you hear other'.
    13. present: Instructs to shelter in place until further notice.
    14. present: Instructs to shelter in place until further notice.
    15. present: Instructs to shelter in place until further notice.
    16. present: Instructs to 'shelter in place until you hear other'.
    17. present: Instructs to 'shelter in place until you hear other'
    18. present: 'please shelter in place until you hear other.'
    19. present: Instructs to shelter in place.
    20. present: Instructs to 'shelter in place until you hear other'.
    21. present: Instructs 'please shelter in place until you hear other'.
    22. present: 'Please shelter in place until you hear other[wise].'
    23. present: Instructs to shelter in place until further word.
    24. present: Instructs 'shelter in place until you hear other'.
    25. present: Instructs 'please shelter in place until you hear other'.
  • Timeabsent2/25

    Final assessment

    Nearly unanimous (23 of 25): no clock time or date is given; a couple of reads read 'until you hear other' as conveying ongoing status, but most did not treat that as a time element.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: No clock time or date given.
    2. absent: No clock time or specific recency marker given.
    3. absent: 'until you hear other' is not a specific time reference.
    4. present: 'until you hear other' implies ongoing/current status.
    5. absent: No specific time or date given.
    6. absent: No specific time or date given.
    7. absent: No time or date given.
    8. absent: No specific time, date, or recency indicator given.
    9. absent: No specific time reference given
    10. absent: No specific time given, only 'at this time' implied.
    11. absent: No specific time or recency marker given.
    12. absent: No clock time or date given.
    13. absent: No specific time or date given.
    14. absent: No specific time reference given, only 'until you hear other'.
    15. absent: No clock time or date given.
    16. absent: No specific time or date given.
    17. absent: No clock time or specific recency marker given
    18. absent: No specific time given.
    19. present: "Until you hear other[wise]" conveys ongoing status.
    20. absent: No specific time given, only ongoing instruction.
    21. absent: No clock time or date given.
    22. absent: No specific time given.
    23. absent: No specific time given.
    24. absent: No specific time given, 'until you hear other' is not a time reference.
    25. absent: No specific time given, only 'at this time' implied.
  • Impactabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: no consequence or severity is stated, consistent with the threat being described as not detected.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    2. absent: No stated consequence or severity described.
    3. absent: No stated consequence.
    4. absent: No stated potential harm or severity.
    5. absent: No stated consequence, and threat is described as not detected.
    6. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    7. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    8. absent: No stated potential harm or severity.
    9. absent: No stated consequence
    10. absent: No stated harm or severity.
    11. absent: No stated consequence or severity conveyed.
    12. absent: No statement of potential harm or severity.
    13. absent: No stated consequence.
    14. absent: No stated consequence or severity conveyed.
    15. absent: No statement of potential harm or severity.
    16. absent: No stated harm or severity, and threat is stated as not detected.
    17. absent: No stated consequence or severity
    18. absent: No statement of potential harm.
    19. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    20. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    21. absent: No stated potential harm or severity.
    22. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    23. absent: No stated potential harm.
    24. absent: No stated potential harm or severity.
    25. absent: No stated harm or severity.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

On the evening of Sunday, May 7, 2023 (during Lehigh's reading-and-exams period at the close of the spring semester) Northampton County 911 received a non-emergency call reporting an active shooter at "the main building" near East Packer Avenue and Webster Street on Lehigh's Asa Packer campus in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The Lehigh University Police Department issued the first HawkWatch alert at 9:43 PM EDT instructing the campus to Run-Hide-Fight. Five total alerts were sent over 68 minutes, shifting from Run-Hide-Fight to Shelter-in-Place to a final all-clear at 10:51 PM EDT that explicitly characterized the report as a hoax. LUPD coordinated with Bethlehem Police, Pennsylvania State Police, and the FBI to identify the caller. The incident fit the pattern of spring 2023 college swatting hoaxes that targeted Pennsylvania and New Jersey campuses including Rutgers, Rider, the University of Pittsburgh, and Saint Joseph's University, most calls came from outside the area and were placed to county non-emergency lines, suggesting an organized rather than spontaneous pattern.
Analysis

Key Findings

The hoax call was placed to Northampton County 911 non-emergency rather than the emergency line, a hallmark of organized swatting that the FBI flagged in its 2023 college-campus advisory
Lehigh sent five HawkWatch alerts in 68 minutes, shifting from Run-Hide-Fight to Shelter-in-Place to all-clear
The university explicitly used the word 'hoax' in its all-clear, a relatively direct word choice compared to peer institutions that used 'unfounded'
The incident occurred during the spring 2023 college-swatting wave that also hit Pitt, Rider, Rutgers, and Saint Joseph's
Lehigh subsequently engaged the FBI and Pennsylvania State Police, indicating early classification as part of the broader interstate swatting investigation
Outcome
No threat was found. LUPD, Bethlehem Police, Pennsylvania State Police, and the FBI investigated; the call was confirmed as a hoax. Lehigh joined a wave of spring 2023 swatting calls targeting Pennsylvania and New Jersey universities.
Provenance

Sources

Every claim on this page is meant to be checkable. Open the links below (and the Verify this quote control under each confirmed alert) to read the original university, news, or archive page yourself. Hostnames are shown so you can see where you are going; archived copies survive when live pages move or disappear. See also our methodology.

  1. Official
    Lehigh HawkWatch CAP alert id=109452 (May 7, 2023 10:38 p.m.)
    lehigh.apparmor.com
    archived copy
  2. Official
    Lehigh HawkWatch CAP alert id=109451 (May 7, 2023 10:10 p.m.)
    lehigh.apparmor.com
    archived copy
  3. Official
    Lehigh HawkWatch CAP alert id=109450 (May 7, 2023 9:59 p.m.)
    lehigh.apparmor.com
    archived copy
  4. Student Paper
    BREAKING: LUPD investigates active shooter threat hoax (The Brown and White)
    thebrownandwhite.com
    archived copy
  5. Official
    Follow-up From False Active Shooter Incident (Lehigh University News)
    news.lehigh.edu
    archived copy
  6. Official
    A Message to Families Regarding False Active Shooter Incident (Lehigh University)
    news.lehigh.edu
    archived copy
  7. News
    FBI, state police investigating Lehigh University 'active shooter' hoax (LehighValleyNews.com)
    lehighvalleynews.com
    archived copy
  8. Student Paper
    Shooting hoaxes increase on college campuses (The Brown and White)
    thebrownandwhite.com
    archived copy
  9. Official
    HawkWatch Alert Log (Lehigh University Police)
    police.lehigh.edu
    archived copy
  10. Official
    Lehigh HawkWatch CAP #109456 (all-clear / hoax)
    lehigh.apparmor.com
    archived copy
  11. Official
    HawkWatch CAP — Active Shooter Report May 7, 2023
    lehigh.apparmor.com
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Lehigh University: Hoax active-shooter call prompts five alerts in 68 minutes, ending in all-clear." Incident of May 7, 2023. Added May 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/lehigh-university-active-shooter-hoax-2023-05-07/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
swattingactive-shooter-hoaxlehighpennsylvaniaprivate-r2spring-2023-swatting-wavehawkwatchrun-hide-fightfbi-investigationlehigh-valleyHoax
Added May 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion