Felony charges for posting pictures of police officer

[IndyDave1776]

I am not sure what I think about this. First, it once again underscores the idea that Texas is less the bastion of liberty it is purported to be and more a socially conservative statist entity. I can't say that I would want anyone involved in this story for a neighbor, but felony retaliation charges for simply posting a picture? This sounds more like the DPRIllinois in action.

Woman faces felony after posting photo of undercover cop on Facebook | Digital Trends

 

[patience0830]

I am not sure what I think about this. First, it once again underscores the idea that Texas is less the bastion of liberty it is purported to be and more a socially conservative statist entity. I can't say that I would want anyone involved in this story for a neighbor, but felony retaliation charges for simply posting a picture? This sounds more like the DPRIllinois in action.

Woman faces felony after posting photo of undercover cop on Facebook | Digital Trends

Hmmm. Wonder if the police might start posting flyers of known gangsters and drug dealers with labels as undercover cops? Just let 'em off each other.

 

[hoosierdoc]

The undercover officer had a Facebook page???

 

[mrjarrell]

The undercover officer had a Facebook page???

Yep. And it looks like he deserved what he got. You put your picture out in a public forum and expect it not to attract notice? He was an idiot and I hope the person in the story gets off scott free.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The undercover officer had a Facebook page???

Exactly, but they still want to slap felonies on three people over his picture. It sounds to me like they were having trouble finding anything that would pass for a legitimate charge on some people they wanted to put away. The other side of the coin is that I am not sure that I would object to having them put away if I knew them better, but my concern is that if it is allowed for those who, to say the least, do not inspire sympathy, then it can be done to any of us and likely will. Some of the elders in our group may well remember times in which felons on parole received more freedom than the rest of us have today.

 

[Shelly1582]

If she had gotten him killed through outing him as undercover, she should face greater charges. The behavior is ridiculous, no excuse.

Edit: I thought she was the one posting his photo on FB and pointing out he is an under cover officer? How is this his fault?

 

[45fan]

Sounds like the police have a very valid reason to feel that the officer in question was being put in a threatening situation from the actions of the woman. As a result, they found another turd floating in the punch bowl, and were justified in flushing the offending matter into the penal system.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here is the applicable Texas law. It seem to me that posting a picture of an unidentified man and asking 'Who is this @&%#$*#?' is difficult to construe as harm or the threat of harm.

§ 36.06. OBSTRUCTION OR RETALIATION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly harms or
threatens to harm another by an unlawful act:
(1) in retaliation for or on account of the service or
status of another as a:
(A) public servant, witness, prospective
witness, or informant; or
(B) person who has reported or who the actor
knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime; or
(2) to prevent or delay the service of another as a:
(A) public servant, witness, prospective
witness, or informant; or
(B) person who has reported or who the actor
knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime.
(b) In this section:
(1) "Honorably retired peace officer" means a peace
officer who:
(A) did not retire in lieu of any disciplinary
action;
(B) was eligible to retire from a law enforcement
agency or was ineligible to retire only as a result of an injury
received in the course of the officer's employment with the agency;
and
(C) is entitled to receive a pension or annuity
for service as a law enforcement officer or is not entitled to
receive a pension or annuity only because the law enforcement
agency that employed the officer does not offer a pension or annuity
to its employees.
(2) "Informant" means a person who has communicated
information to the government in connection with any governmental
function.
(3) "Public servant" includes an honorably retired
peace officer.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree unless the victim of the offense was harmed or threatened
because of the victim's service or status as a juror, in which event
the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3238, ch. 558, § 4, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 557, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 239, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts
2001, 77th Leg., ch. 835, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003,
78th Leg., ch. 246, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Just for fun, I also found this in the Texas Penal Code. I would say that it speaks volumes about how the powers that be in Texas think that they would make it illegal to use laser pointers on 'special ones' but not on the rest of us.

§ 42.13. USE OF LASER POINTERS. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person knowingly directs a light from a laser pointer
at a uniformed safety officer, including a peace officer, security
guard, firefighter, emergency medical service worker, or other
uniformed municipal, state, or federal officer.
(b) In this section, "laser pointer" means a device that
emits a visible light amplified by the stimulated emission of
radiation.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 467, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

 

[phylodog]

Yep. And it looks like he deserved what he got. You put your picture out in a public forum and expect it not to attract notice? He was an idiot and I hope the person in the story gets off scott free.

I didn't see where the article mentioned that the officer had a facebook page or that the officer ha posted a picture of himself but hey, why pass up an opportunity, right?

 

[phylodog]

Just for fun, I also found this in the Texas Penal Code. I would say that it speaks volumes about how the powers that be in Texas think that they would make it illegal to use laser pointers on 'special ones' but not on the rest of us.

Many states have similar statutes, including Indiana.

IC 35-47-4.5-4
Directing laser pointer at public safety officer or state police motor carrier inspector
Sec. 4. A person who knowingly or intentionally directs light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye or any other electromagnetic radiation from a laser pointer at a public safety officer or a state police motor carrier inspector without the consent of the public safety officer or state police motor carrier inspector commits a Class B misdemeanor.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't see where the article mentioned that the officer had a facebook page or that the officer ha posted a picture of himself but hey, why pass up an opportunity, right?

From the article:

After searching online, Pickens had discovered the photo on Facebook without any tag to identify the undercover officer’s personal Facebook account.

 

[Bunnykid68]

How bad are they going to hit her with the sawed off shotgun and the meth?

 

[phylodog]

From the article:

Says there was a pic with no tag to identify his account, doesn't say if he had one. Some may take that as indication that he does, my experience with the quality of "journalism" tells me I'd be an idiot to make that assumption.

 

[Fargo]

What TX statute makes posting cop's pictures an "unlawful act" for purposes of sub (a) of the retaliation statute?

I simply don't see how publicizing the identity of an undercover cop can be illegal; what with the 1st Amendment and all.

If this case is truly charged simply over posting a picture of an undercover cop, I don't see any way that such a charge can be sustained without violence to the constitution.

Look at the caselaw coming out of the Pentagon Papers publication in the media. The government cannot even prevent the publication of classified documents; much less the identity of local LEO's.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the cops simply outright arrested her for retaliation and that is the charge she was remanded for. For whatever reason, the media can almost never figure out that the cops don't charge anyone, the prosecutor does.

I really doubt that the local prosecutor has or will be filing the charge, but then again I could be wrong.

Either way, the cops could face some liability on this one as I believe the law is well settled and clear on the matter and so they may fall outside of their qualified immunity.

Best,

Joe

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

Many states have similar statutes, including Indiana.

IC 35-47-4.5-4
Directing laser pointer at public safety officer or state police motor carrier inspector
Sec. 4. A person who knowingly or intentionally directs light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye or any other electromagnetic radiation from a laser pointer at a public safety officer or a state police motor carrier inspector without the consent of the public safety officer or state police motor carrier inspector commits a Class B misdemeanor.

I actually see no problem with this law because of laser sights.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Many states have similar statutes, including Indiana.

IC 35-47-4.5-4
Directing laser pointer at public safety officer or state police motor carrier inspector
Sec. 4. A person who knowingly or intentionally directs light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye or any other electromagnetic radiation from a laser pointer at a public safety officer or a state police motor carrier inspector without the consent of the public safety officer or state police motor carrier inspector commits a Class B misdemeanor.

I actually see no problem with this law because of laser sights.

I see a major problem with it. If it is dangerous, it should be illegal to do to anyone! If it isn't dangerous, it shouldn't be illegal, regardless of the participants.

 

[hopper68]

So what legitimate reason could these mental midgets have for trying to find out who it was that testified against the one? Maybe they thought it was Joe Blow average citizen and were going to get retaliation against him. Whether an officer or not this is threatening a witness in a criminal case and they should be locked up for a long time.

 

[Shelly1582]

Here is the applicable Texas law. It seem to me that posting a picture of an unidentified man and asking 'Who is this @&%#$*#?' is difficult to construe as harm or the threat of harm.
.

Actually she specifically said the photo was of an undercover officer. Not just randomly asking who someone is.

"Walthall specifically mentioned that the officer was working undercover and posted “Anyone know this [expletive]?” in the description"

Good luck trying to find officers willing to go under cover if we can't back them up by punishing those who seek to put them in more danger than they already are. Would you defend those who wish to share the identities of our government agents who depend on anonymity to stay alive?

​

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I see a major problem with it. If it is dangerous, it should be illegal to do to anyone! If it isn't dangerous, it shouldn't be illegal, regardless of the participants.

Cops might think they are Danny Glover for a minute and that could be bad...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Actually she specifically said the photo was of an undercover officer. Not just randomly asking who someone is.

"Walthall specifically mentioned that the officer was working undercover and posted “Anyone know this [expletive]?” in the description"

​

Fair enough.

That said, I am going to return to my primary concern. What happens when this type of law and overzealous enforcement thereof become commonplace? As usual, the initial round is happening with people who do not inspire sympathy from most non-criminals. What happens in the event of a SWAT team no-knocking the wrong house where the homeowner has security cameras and the next day posts on Facebook, "Meet the a**hats who wrecked my house last night!"? Are we to accept someone becoming a felon over a little righteous indignation? I certainly hope you don't believe that they would do this to people who 'deserve' it but not to the rest of us.