• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Help With False Charge Terroristic Threatening

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

lawdoggie

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? KY

What course of action can be taken in this case?

A professor receives a threatening e-mail from his own e-mail account (this can be faked.) The police ask who "might" have done this. The professor names one student. The student is questioned, denies sending the threat (even though he is cajoled endlessly by the police to admit to it and claim it was a prank), and voluntarily gives his personal computer & cell phone to police. At that moment, based on no better evidence that what I have written here the student is arrested on Terroristic Threatening. No rights are read to him. He is released to his family.

A few days later in court the judge is about ready to toss the case out, but miraculously the police & professor produce another e-mail sent after the initial interrogation & arrest that names the interrogator thus "proving" this student did it. Assumably because nobody except the student knew who interrogated him (as if every cop at the police station & every campus security officer didn't know.) Based on this the student is jailed on $100,000 bond. He bonds out but is now under house arrest, banned from school & will lose his job. The case will go to grand jury & the PC is at a forensics lab.

This stinks to high heaven as a setup as I don't think even the dumbest person in the world (which this student isn't) would, after being questioned, arrested, and surrendering PC/Phone to the police, go straight home and send an additional threat message to the professor naming the investigator.

This young person is completely confused and still maintains innocence. My question is what legal action can be taken against the school & police for this violation of rights. Also, what agency can I turn to as it is quite possible that the local authorities are biased & complicit. They seem invested in hanging this young person no matter what his guilt or innocence. As an FYI, this young person has NO criminal record beyond a few speeding tickets.

The charge in the case is 508.078 Terroristic threatening in the second degree. Which can be found here http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/508-00/078.PDF

Any help is appreciated.
 
Last edited:


lawdoggie

Junior Member
Interesting. So in your view, if a teacher claims that a student sent a threatening e-mail, even though there is zero evidence supporting the accusation & even though the student admits nothing, and further in an attemt to be cooperatinve said student turns over all computer and cell phone equipment voluntarily, that it is correct for law enforcemnet to arrest the student and not even read the student her/his rights?

This is your view?

If this is correct behavior then the law certainly needs to be changed because any teacher could destroy the life of any student by simply writing themselves a threat message and saying that a student did it.
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
I am curious.

The second email the professor received - if the police still had the student's computer, which computer was this email sent from?

Also, was anything incriminating found, either on the cell phone or the computer belonging to the student?

And, finally, what was the reason for the professor suspecting this student in the first place?

There seems to be some vital information missing here.
 

lawdoggie

Junior Member
Reply

" "The second email the professor received - if the police still had the student's computer, which computer was this email sent from? " - that is a good question, the computer & cell were gone. Nobody knows where it came from. As a reiteration, ALL e-mail was addressed FROM the professors own e-mail account. This professor has an e-mail link on the University web site so literally anyone in the world can send him e-mail without knowing his e-mail address. Also, the likelihood that a first time arrested kid would immediately send an additional threatening message upon being released from custody for said crime is so far fetched it requires a willing suspension of disbelief. The police claim that only the student knew the name of the interrogator is obviously false on its face...didn't the supervisor, the desk sergeant, and any cop in the building know what was going on. Campus security would have known who was interrogating the student. Any of these people could have mentioned it to the professor. It is just a ridicules, hole riddled, point of proof.

Also, was anything incriminating found, either on the cell phone or the computer belonging to the student? - Not known yet, the equipment has been sent to a 3rd party investigator. Results will not be known for days? Weeks? Months? In the meantime the student is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Under house arrest indefinately.

And, finally, what was the reason for the professor suspecting this student in the first place? - Not 100% sure, student was not doing well in the class and had debated the professor on issues. It was not said, and has not been contested, that these debates were of a threatening nature, they were simply disagreements of opinion. Also, the forementioned "debates" happened months ago they are not recent happenings. When the prof received the e-mails he contacted police, the police asked who might have sent the messages and he mentioned this kids name based on that history. To my knowledge, there has been no overt threats made by this student in person & the professor is not claiming that there has been. Also, No witness from the students class have been interviewed to my knowledge.

I am curious.

The second email the professor received - if the police still had the student's computer, which computer was this email sent from?

Also, was anything incriminating found, either on the cell phone or the computer belonging to the student?

And, finally, what was the reason for the professor suspecting this student in the first place?

There seems to be some vital information missing here.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I am not as convinced as you seem to be that "this stinks to high heaven as a set up".

I am finding it, for instance, equally (if not more) absurd to think that the local authorities, the campus police, the judge and the professor have all conspired against this one innocent student, trumping up terrorist threat charges against him just for the heck of it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that authorities have good reason already to link this young fellow to the emails sent. You are unaware of any threats made earlier, but you being unaware of the threats does not make them non-existent.

As I said, there seems to be some vital information missing here and, unless you are this innocent student being railroaded, I think it must be left to the more informed police to handle.
 

lawdoggie

Junior Member
Reply

I don't think that they conspired to "get" this student. I think that the professor probably did receive threatening messages & out of concern called the police. When asked who sent the messages the only person he could think of at the moment was this one student. Maybe there was reason, maybe he just couldn't think of anyone else on that day. (I don't know how old the messages were but I understand from my sources that the prof did not check his e-mail that often so they were not exactly recent.) At that point, I believe that police made the jump from suspicion to guilt and envisioned an easily wrapped up case. (Fast forward through the initial interrogation & equipment confiscation.)

Now, as I said, based on all evidence to that point the judge was going to throw the case out of court because it was basically hearsay and there was no real evidence to charge this kid.

Then, luckily for the prosecution, the evening before the first court appearance a new threat message is sent in which the police interrogator who interviewed the kid is mentioned by name. (How convenient for a prosecution that was about to be thrown out of court.) This final e-mail is the part I find extremely un-credible and suspicious & more importantly this is the ENTIRE reason that the case was not tossed from court. Their whole case hinges on "nobody but the student knew the name of the police official who interviewed him". That is pure crap. I have worked for lawyers & I have worked for prosecutors in the past. I know that they talk among each other & they don't like being tossed out of court.

Perhaps you are correct and more information will come to light, time will tell. As it is, the attorney for the accused is not allowed to see the evidence. This also seems odd to me.

In any event I do appreciate your response. Have a good evening.




I am not as convinced as you seem to be that "this stinks to high heaven as a set up".

I am finding it, for instance, equally (if not more) absurd to think that the local authorities, the campus police, the judge and the professor have all conspired against this one innocent student, trumping up terrorist threat charges against him just for the heck of it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that authorities have good reason already to link this young fellow to the emails sent. You are unaware of any threats made earlier, but you being unaware of the threats does not make them non-existent.

As I said, there seems to be some vital information missing here and, unless you are this innocent student being railroaded, I think it must be left to the more informed police to handle.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top