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'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT