Facts: Girl goes through drive-thru of fast food place. One of the guys working inside recognizes her as the girl who gave him a fake phone number. He then puts a dirty diaper in the bag with her order. (She does throw the diaper at him!) The food was wrapped and the diaper did not touch the food. Can anyone name the crime?
Thanks!

Did she assault him when she threw the diaper?

... or maybe by giving a fake number she committed wire fraud... RICO ?

In the guys defense, the girl did order the #2.

Crime is a dirty business.

Depends.

Your happy meal peddler merely misunderstood what he was supposed to be doing. He had heard that one is supposed to "pamper" the object of one's affection.

A more troublesome question is why was there a dirty diaper handy in a restaurant kitchen?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boyd Kennedy:
A more troublesome question is why was there a dirty diaper handy in a restaurant kitchen?

---

Oh come on! Haven't you ever gotten a fake number from a girl, and then went and obtained a dirty diaper and carried it around with you for weeks and weeks, waiting for your chance, and then when you finally come across her again...I mean, we've all done that, haven't we?...right?....right?...

illegal dumping?

Will you be asking the accused to forfeit the weapon as a condition of any plea agreement?

Call the health department I bet they can think of something !

You know, when I decided to post this question so that the more "legally minded" of our kind would help, I knew I would get some smart responses! But I guess I forgot to add the warning: "Please don't try this trick at home," and watch what you order at Taco Bell....
And finally, to my friend Wes...I thought the dirty diaper you carried around with you during the campaign was from your newborn son, but now, I just can't help but wonder....

So that's what they're referring to as "fourthmeal"?

Maybe PC sec. 32.42(b)(4) (selling an adulterated commodity). Tampering with a consumer product (22.09) may be a stretch, since this really seems more toilet-humor retaliation than intentionally adding "a foreign substance to a consumer product to make it probable that the consume product will cause serious bodily injury." Granted, though, e-coli could conceivably wreak considerable havoc with one's health.

Did she see the diaper first, or did she first think, "hmm, this food smells like ______!"?

Mothballs in the soup? Police say woman added secret ingredient

Strange-smelling vats attract attention at northwest Randalls.

By Miguel Liscano

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF


Saturday, July 21, 2007

The first time the soup smelled like mothballs, Randalls employees threw it out. The second time, they had it tested and, sure enough, it had mothballs in it.

By the time it happened again, management had set up surveillance cameras to watch the soup cart, and noticed a woman acting suspiciously.


Police say the same woman used her Randalls card regularly, buying, among other things, mothballs. After police questioned her, she was arrested and now could face up to 20 years in prison.

Lea Suzan Sechler, 44, a customer at the supermarket, was charged Thursday with tampering with a consumer product, a second degree felony. Her bail was set at $100,000.

Sechler was arrested Thursday afternoon and was released a few hours later.

"She denied putting 'handfuls of mothballs' in the soup; however, she did say that 'it was possible she might have "maybe" dropped some Prozac or crackers in the soup, but (she) wasn't sure,' " Detective Brendon Hanly wrote in an arrest warrant affidavit. "She asked me several times if she should confess."

Connie Yates, a spokeswoman for Randalls Food Markets, said there have been no reported illnesses related to the tainted soup.

Sechler could not be reached for comment.

A deli clerk noticed the smell of mothballs coming from the soup cart at the Northwest Austin Randalls, 8040 Mesa Drive, in late May and was told to throw it out, the affidavit said.

After a customer complained about a smell coming from soup she bought at the store about a week later, a manager closed the soup station and sent the batch to a food industry safety company for tests, the affidavit said.

It tested positive for the chemical compound dichlorobenzene, a primary ingredient in many mothballs, the affidavit said. The chemical can contribute to a range of ailments, especially with long-term exposure.

After the second incident, supermarket management mounted surveillance cameras near the soup cart and employees began checking the soup regularly, the affidavit said. On June 20, a manager noticed the smell of mothballs once again coming from the soup, Hanly wrote in the report.

Police later saw Sechler on surveillance video opening a vat of soup at the cart before it started to smell.

"When she opened it, she used the back of her hand indicating that she had something in it," Hanly wrote in the report. "She did not bend over to look into the vat or stir it, but had her hand in there for at least a second before removing it."

Investigators identified her through a store savings card she used while checking out.

And, by searching through records of purchases made with the card, police found that she had bought mothballs and soup at the store in the past few months around the time it was tainted, the affidavit said.

Police set up surveillance at her residence, and later stopped her for several traffic violations, the affidavit said. During the traffic stop, Sechler agreed to talk to police about the Randalls incident.