Obstruction charges through Facebook posts

June 23, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Facebook users let people know what they are eating for dinner, that they don’t feel well, and their plans for Saturday night – why not let the world know when you are involved in a police standoff and possible hostage situation?

A man involved in a standoff with police kept up with his Facebook page throughout the 16-hour ordeal. The Utah man updated his status, responded to comments, and even posted a photo of the alleged hostage in the room with him. He did all this while police were trying to get him out of the hotel room after attempting to serve a felony warrant for failure to appear on drug-related charges.

Some of his Facebook friends even wrote about police movements outside the hotel. Those friends may now face obstruction charges. Ogden Police Lt. Danielle Croyle said police were monitoring his online accounts and those friends could be charged.

She also said it’s becoming more common for criminals to use social media even in the midst of dangerous situations. What is going through a criminal’s mind that while he’s involved in a car chase, burglary, standoff, etc., he thinks it’s the best time to whip out his smart phone and let the world know what’s going on? Couldn’t those comments be used against him in court?

This is the first I’ve read of a person involved in a criminal activity using social media simultaneously. Have you heard of any other examples?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT