Is there a crime that can be charged for spoofing?

FYI, spoofing is where you can "fake" where you're calling from on a Caller ID by using some sort of account or device that will show that you are calling from a certain number when you are not.

I have a suspect who is calling a victim and it appears on her phone that he is calling from her home number (this leading her to believe that he is inside her home). He has even spoofed my office number! He is not threatening her...just spoofing these numbers so that she will answer.

Obviously, this is annoying to me and very alarming to the victim.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

42.07(a)(4)causes the telephone of another to ring repeatedly or makes repeated telephone communications anonymously or in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another. Class B

Most large offices spoof caller ID in a configuration where they have only about 25 actual outside lines per 100 desk phone numbers. This works because the chances are that at any given time no more than 10% if the phones will be connected to an external phone line. The phone switch computer automagically does CallerID spoofing on outgoing external calls and routes the incomming calls to the appropriate desk extension. Your office may have something like this if you "dial 9" for an outside line.

Is the constitutionality of 42.07 in question?

I think there is a split. The Austin Court says its constitutional but the Fort Worth says its unconstitutionally vague. A PDR has been granted in the Fort Worth case.

They argued the Fort Worth case at the CCA about two weeks ago. (Just before the Annual.)

I need to reread the cases on harassment, so I might be misremembering, but wasn't it just the "annoying" part that was "vague"?

Are repeated annonymous (but nevertheless enjoyable) calls subject to the same vagueness concerns? Is there a meaningful distinction to be made? I'm asking sincerely as I dig legal analysis. (What a sad admission to make.)

[This message was edited by David Newell on 01-30-09 at .]

David, the enjoyable phone calls (what ARE you up to in your spare time?) wouldn't be subject to the law. The statute only covers calls intended to "harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend". During arguments, some of the judges seemed to think that "annoy" was too vague a term and they were criminalizing "your refrigerator is running."

Why is intent to harass not vague? Can the specific intent requirement here be used to save it like it saved the virtual child porn statute?

(And if my co-workers are to be believed, I spend my spare time putting warnings about zombies on construction signs.)

[This message was edited by David Newell on 01-30-09 at .]