Yes peeing in the forest is still considered “in public”.
It is not surprising how seriously law enforcement take any accusation of making a terroristic threat, but what often surprises clients is what types of actions lead to this type of crime. Even threatening to “kill someone” in the middle of a bar room argument, even if you never intended to go through with the act, can be considered a terroristic threat and lead to serious criminal charges.
A Texas man has been charged with a crime for allegedly calling his girlfriend and making threats. The girlfriend alleges that she received several calls in which the man threatened to kill her. If the man did make these phone calls, one would expect him to face some sort of charge, however, making a “terroristic threat” is not the charge that would immediately come to mind. But that is the charge that the man now faces.
As the Texas Practice Series highlights, it is important to note that the statute covers the “intent” of the person alleged to have committed the crime. A charge of making a terroristic threat does not have to even place the supposed victim in a state of fear, just that there was the intent to do so. Furthermore, the person alleged to have made the threat doesn’t even need to have the capacity or ability to carry out the alleged threat, again, just the intent to instill fear in the victim.
A person charged with making a terroristic threat against another: If the threat is made against a family member or member of the household it’s a Class A misdemeanor. For a Class A misdemeanor a person faces a penalty of up to a year in jail and/or a fine of up to $4,000.
Authorities are leaning more toward zero tolerance of teenagers who fling around online threats about acts of violence or terrorism. As a result, what might have once merited a slap on the wrist may today result in criminal charges.
The case of teenager Cameron Dambrosio might serve as an object lesson to young people everywhere about minding what you say online unless you are prepared to be arrested for terrorism.
The Methuen, Mass., high school student was arrested last week after posting online videos that show him rapping an original song that police say contained “disturbing verbiage” and reportedly mentioned the White House and the Boston Marathon bombing. He is charged with communicating terrorist threats, a state felony, and faces a potential 20 years in prison. Bail is set at $1 million.
So as you can see it doesn’t surprise me that Law Enforcement can read e-mails without a warrant. These things have been going on for a while now. Here is some laws you don’t know about….
US Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland Security Policy Changes
Allowed suspicionless searches of documents and electronic devices carried by US citizens returning from overseas travel.
Before this change, a government directive allowed customs officials to read documents or papers belonging to Americans returning from overseas travel only if there was a reasonable suspicion that a US law had been violated. The new policy, introduced by the Bush administration and followed by the Obama administration, allows government officials to search any documents or papers, including the entire contents of laptops and other electronic devices, without any suspicion of wrongdoing.
Authorized “sneak and peak” searches.
“Sneak and peak” search warrants allow the government to search your home or business without telling you about it until months later. Although national security concerns were the stated justification for this authority, these warrants are issued overwhelmingly in drug cases, with less than 1 percent used for terrorism cases.