Results 1 to 8 of 8

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default Phone Harassment Laws

    My question involves defamation in the state of: California.
    Hi I don't know if I'm posting this in the right area or not. I recently had a situation where one of my friends played a prank on me and sent somebody a message through my phone to somebody I don't know. The message was as follows: "hey I saw the ad." The next morning I got a message from that number saying that my number has been reported to the police and that harassment charges have been filed. I sent that person a message back saying I don't know who they were and I was sorry for the message. I wanted to know if there were any grounds for harassment charges to be brought against me.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Harassment California

    Quote Quoting Psb
    View Post
    My question involves defamation in the state of: California.
    Hi I don't know if I'm posting this in the right area or not. I recently had a situation where one of my friends played a prank on me and sent somebody a message through my phone to somebody I don't know. The message was as follows: "hey I saw the ad." The next morning I got a message from that number saying that my number has been reported to the police and that harassment charges have been filed. I sent that person a message back saying I don't know who they were and I was sorry for the message. I wanted to know if there were any grounds for harassment charges to be brought against me.

    Thanks in advance.
    Nope. A single unwanted text is NOT going to get be sufficient for a prosecutor to charge for annoying or harassing communications (PC 653m).

    Someone's either bluffing, or they ticked off the local police by reporting it.

    While there is clearly there is more to this story than you are telling, if there was a single message sent and that was all it said, then I can see no chance of criminal charges.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Harassment California

    I know it seems that way but I can assure you that apart for the two messages mentioned no other messages were sent to that number from my phone. And the second one I only sent to let them know that it wasn't intentional and that I was sorry. Thank you very much for your quick reply though.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    479

    Default Re: Harassment California

    "A single unwanted text is NOT going to get be sufficient for a prosecutor to charge for annoying or harassing communications (PC 653m)."

    Well, I suppose it depends on the state and other circumstances. And then there's the fact that a recipient/alleged victim can claim just about anything without any evidence of it whatsoever (phone calls/text messages/emails can also be spoofed). Someone can also claim that the sender was told to buzz off, for instance, so that even a single contact beyond that may be considered unlawful harassment. There are also "harassment: course of conduct" charges that don't require (even claims of) repeated contact.

    ... and you'd be surprised at how law enforcement personnel largely only care about probable cause and don't actually bother to investigate or even collect evidence. I (and others) know this from personal experience. When it comes to misdemeanor-level issues, in many jurisdictions the officer is free to seek charges on his/her own by way of applying before a (say, district) court commissioner/magistrate without ever conferring with anyone else other than their superior officer. And because a given prosecutor may tend to go along with whatever law enforcement has chosen to do (don't mess with the officer's stats), they may be loathe to just drop it. Many things factor into what can happen.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Harassment California

    Thank you for the reply Foster but with the above info, do you think there are grounds for any case at all? I repeat I don't even know this person and I don't want to get into trouble for something that is so trivial and that I didn't do.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    479

    Default Re: Harassment California

    Not clear what I said that would indicate I think facts as mentioned mean there are "grounds for any case at all"; I was pointing out what is possible.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Harassment California

    Quote Quoting Foster_Foster
    View Post
    Well, I suppose it depends on the state and other circumstances. And then there's the fact that a recipient/alleged victim can claim just about anything without any evidence of it whatsoever (phone calls/text messages/emails can also be spoofed). Someone can also claim that the sender was told to buzz off, for instance, so that even a single contact beyond that may be considered unlawful harassment. There are also "harassment: course of conduct" charges that don't require (even claims of) repeated contact.
    They can CLAIM anything, but supporting the probable cause necessary to bring the matter to trial is unlikely absent some serious fraud. This is a very low level misdemeanor in CA and not likely to result in criminal charges absent some additional offenses supported by phone/internet records.

    The typical law enforcement response is to take the report, contact the offender and tell him.her to back off, and leave it at that. The "victim" can obtain a phone trap or other record if the provider provides that service, and the data can be sent to the police after a 30 day period. If there is evidence to show continuing communications, charges can be filed. Typically, however, the police and/or the DA will want to see the victim seek a restraining order against the offender before taking any action.

    If the police have not contacted the OP, I strongly suspect that no police report has been filed. And, if it was, then they are not pursuing it as a criminal allegation as they have not yet contacted the OP.

    ... and you'd be surprised at how law enforcement personnel largely only care about probable cause and don't actually bother to investigate or even collect evidence.
    No, I wouldn't. I am a police manager and supervisor, after all. However, for low level misdemeanors such as PC 653m (as this would be), we are NOT going to seek subpoenas and search warrants.

    When it comes to misdemeanor-level issues, in many jurisdictions the officer is free to seek charges on his/her own by way of applying before a (say, district) court commissioner/magistrate without ever conferring with anyone else other than their superior officer.
    The OP is in California, and it does not work that way here. The request for charges would have to go through the DA, and for this (one time message) no DA would waste his or her time. Plus, this one communication alone would not meet the probable cause necessary to charge for the offense.

    PC§ 653m. Annoying Electronic Communication
    (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.
    (b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.
    (c) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to have been committed when and where the telephone call or calls were made or received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed to have been committed when and where the electronic communication or communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient.
    (d) Subdivision (a) or (b) is violated when the person acting with intent to annoy makes a telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device requesting a return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a) or (b) upon receiving the return call.
    (e) Subdivision (a) or (b) is violated when a person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic communication under the person's control to be used for the purposes prohibited by those subdivisions.
    (f) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section, the court may order as a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling.
    (g) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, facsimile machines, pagers, personal digital assistants, smartphones, and any other device that transfers signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, or data. "Electronic communication device" also includes, but is not limited to, videophones, TTY/TDD devices, and all other devices used to aid or assist communication to or from deaf or disabled persons. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: Harassment California

    Quote Quoting Foster_Foster
    View Post
    "A single unwanted text is NOT going to get be sufficient for a prosecutor to charge for annoying or harassing communications (PC 653m)."

    Well, I suppose it depends on the state and other circumstances.
    Well given that OP is in Cali and cdwjava is a Cali LE with decades of experience, I'd say he's spot on. Yes, things will vary from state to state but OP received accurate advise from someone active on LE in their state.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Harassment: Phone Harassment
    By maverick1977 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-23-2012, 07:52 AM
  2. Phone Harassment
    By pralims in forum Orders of Protection
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-17-2010, 01:45 AM
  3. Harassment: Phone Harassment
    By helen.b in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 07:31 PM
  4. Assault & Battery: Phone Harassment
    By bacon123 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 06:53 PM
  5. Harassment: Charges on Phone Threats and Sexual Phone Harassment
    By divise17 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-19-2008, 08:26 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources