A defendant is unhappy about being arrested on some misdemeanors and tells the arresting officer that he is going to have his cell phone deactivated. Sure enough, his phone loses service for several days. This is his department issued phone and it would have been obvious to him that it was used for police communications. It is later determined that the defendant's brother works for the cell provider and the defendant had him deactivate the phone.

Closest thing I can find is maybe interference with public duties. It seems the statutes dealing with interruption of police communications apply only to radio services not cell services. Anything else besides a class B Misdemeanor?

What about retaliation under 36.06?

First reaction: civil tortious interference with contract.

Second reaction: Maybe the brother could be charged with fraudulently using the identifying information of the officer to tamper with the account, and the defendant could be charged as a party?

I agree with JM. 36.06 includes both criminal and tortious acts in the definition of unlawful. This action is definitely tortious. And when you find a definition of tortious, please share it with the rest of us.

Makes sense. Thanks.