|
What Everyone Should Know About Crank
Calling and Stalking
There
are many legal pranks, but a legal prank does not necessarily mean you
should do it. A legal prank could
turn illegal depending on the specific facts of your situation and there
are prank laws which is really tort law and
crank call law. Online prank calls for the most part are no different
than traditional phone line prank calls.
Legal pranks really depend on the circumstances of your situation
and whether it is invited or expected or not. You cannot taking just someone at
random and expect the prank to be considered a legal prank. Next time you are looking for April
pranks be very cautious as to what you will do
and who you will be doing it too.
There are prank laws throughout the country and even seemingly
innocent steps like prank calls listen may be enough. You should also be aware that listening
in or recording a conversation without consent is illegal in many
instances. Your April pranks
should never be directed to ex-wives or ex-girlfriends or ex-husbands or
ex-boyfriends there are laws that may be interpreted against you and your
April pranks could go sour very quickly.
What appears to be a legal prank may turn illegal, because of the
relationship you had with that person.
You will have no trouble finding easy pranks, but you should
exercise a great deal of caution.
A seemingly innocent prank is not necessarily a legal prank, there
are legal pranks that could cause serious injury and there are innocent
pranks that likewise can cause serious injury. Prank laws are really personal injury
laws, if you failed to exercise reasonable care and cause injury to
another you are liable. This often
happens when pulling
prank. A legal prank
for the most part would be one where there is no injury or a law that
prohibits the specific conduct, such as making phone calls to someone
repeatedly.
Physical and phone stalking are combined in many state laws,
because they generally go hand on hand.
Phone stalking, crank calling, and
stalking are usually used to intimidate someone, often a former girlfriend
or spouse. The definition of
stalking differs from state to state, but if you believe someone is
stalking, chances are the definition of stalking applies.
In California crank
calls, or prank calls, and threats over the phone to cause injury are
illegal.
Prank phone call voices may be amusing and funny, but they are serious business
in California and most other states. Penal Code
Section 653mm, states that 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. A misdemeanor means jail time may not
exceed one year. There is a
defense to innocent calls or electronic contacts. If the telephone call or electronic
contact is made in good faith then the penalties do not apply. These laws pertaining to prank phone
call voices and threats are subject to interpretation and may apply
differently depending no the person making the phone call and the
recipient. It is true that prank
phone call voices may be welcomed by friends and family, but often these
disguised prank calls are intended to harass and to cause harm and the
victim would be protected.
Every
person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by
means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another
person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues
from making the telephone call or electronic contact, is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
If (1) There
is a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or any other court
order, or any combination of these court orders, in effect prohibiting
the behavior described. Meaning
you have obtained a court order that prohibits the perpetrator from making
crank calls to you; and/or
(2) The
person makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means
of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another
person at his or her place of work, totaling more than 10 times in a
24-hour period, whether or not conversation ensues from making the
telephone call or electronic contact, and the repeated telephone calls or
electronic contacts are made to the workplace of an adult or fully
emancipated minor who is a spouse,
former spouse, cohabitant,
former cohabitant, or person with whom the person has a child or has had
a dating or engagement relationship or is having a dating or engagement
relationship. Essentially California
statutes prohibit undue annoyance at your place of work that may cause
your employer to terminate you.
And
the perpetrator makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact
by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy
another person at his or her place of work then the perpetrator is guilty
of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than
one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Any
offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to have been
committed 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 the electronic communication or
communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient.
The
Civil Code imposes tort liability for stalking when the plaintiff proves
all of the following elements of the tort:
(1)
The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to
follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff.
In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be
required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating
evidence.
(2) As a
result of that pattern of conduct, the plaintiff reasonably feared for
his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member. Immediate family means a spouse,
parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the
second degree, or any person who regularly resides, or, within the six
months preceding any portion of the pattern of conduct, regularly
resided, in the plaintiff's household.
(3) One of
the following:
(A) The
defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in paragraph
(1), made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in
reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate
family member and, on at least one occasion, the plaintiff clearly and
definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her
pattern of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of
conduct.
(B) The
defendant violated a restraining order, including, but not limited to,
any order issued pursuant to Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, prohibiting any act described in subdivision (a) of Civil Code
section 1708.7.
"Pattern of conduct" means
conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however
short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is
not included within the meaning of "pattern of conduct.” “Credible threat" means a
verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an
electronic communication device, or
a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a
combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements
and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the
threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to
reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her
immediate family.
"Electronic
communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones,
cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or
pagers. "Electronic
communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in
Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title
18 of the United States Code.
"Harass" means a knowing and
willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously
alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no
legitimate purpose. The course of
conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer
substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial
emotional distress to the person.
A person who commits the tort of
stalking upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but
not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages
pursuant to Section 3294. General
damages pertain to such things as pain, fear, suffering, anxiety, and
emotional distress. Special damages mean economic damages such as medical
expenses. Punitive damages are
damages awarded to make sure the tortfeasor does not engage in that type
of conduct again.
Speak With a San Diego
Personal Injury Attorney Today
San Diego (619) 573-4501 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (619) 573-4501 end_of_the_skype_highlighting San Marcos (760) 471-4624
|
