On March 2, 1978, Cleveland police publicly linked a series of randomly targeted shootings to one another, drawing attention to a pattern that criminologists and journalists later discussed as an early documented example of a copycat crime wave. The incidents in Cleveland that winter involved scattered, seemingly opportunistic shootings of strangers in public spaces. Investigators noted similarities in modus operandi and timing, and the media coverage that followed intensified public anxiety and the attention of law-enforcement agencies. Scholars of crime and media cite the Cleveland events among early postwar examples where a cluster of similar offenses was attributed, in part, to imitation. The late 20th century saw growing academic interest in the phenomenon of contagion in violent crime: researchers examined how publicity, sensational reporting, and widely shared narratives can provide templates for would-be offenders. The Cleveland case arrived amid that emerging research and became a reference point in discussions about how quickly and broadly imitation can spread when incidents receive sustained coverage. Contemporary reporting from local newspapers documented the sequence of shootings, police appeals for public vigilance, and the mounting community fear. Law enforcement agencies focused on forensic links and behavioral similarities, while also warning that high-profile reporting might inspire additional perpetrators. The Cleveland incidents did not produce a single, conclusively identified mastermind whose actions were clearly copied; rather, the characterization as a ‘‘copycat wave’’ reflected an observed clustering of similar, opportunistic attacks and the concern that media attention could catalyze further incidents. Historians and criminologists emphasize caution in labeling events as ‘‘copycat’’ because direct evidence of imitation—such as communications from later offenders citing earlier crimes as inspiration—is often absent. In the Cleveland case, as in other early instances, the attribution rests on patterns of similarity, temporal clustering, and contemporaneous commentary from police and journalists who raised the prospect of contagion. Subsequent academic work refined the concept of copycat effects by distinguishing between explicit imitation, suggestibility driven by publicity, and independent but thematically similar criminal acts spurred by shared social conditions. The 1978 Cleveland incidents contributed to policy discussions about media responsibility and police-public communications. Some advocates urged restrained, factual reporting to avoid sensationalism that could encourage emulation; others argued that transparency and public warnings were necessary to prevent further harm. These debates informed later guidelines for reporting mass violence and for law-enforcement advisories during active incidents. While later, more thoroughly documented copycat episodes—such as some instances following highly publicized mass shootings—have received greater scholarly attention and clearer evidentiary links, the Cleveland shootings of early March 1978 remain an instructive early case. They illustrate the complexities of attributing imitation in crime: observable patterns can suggest contagion, but proving direct inspiration is difficult. For historians of crime and media, the case underscores how evolving forensic methods, changing media environments, and new research frameworks have shaped understanding of copycat dynamics since the late 20th century.