Criminal Family Law & Injury Attorney Services

You Resource for Criminal Family Law

Category: Uncategorized

Self Incrimination Through Facebook- Los Angeles Criminal Lawyer Perspective

It is becoming increasingly easier to garner unwanted attention or even face potential punishment as a result of posts made on Facebook. Unfortunately, some situations occur in which individuals can get themselves into trouble on Facebook through self-incriminating disclosures. Some of the most common examples of self-incrimination on Facebook include individuals who post photographs or updates on Facebook having to do with criminal activity like drug possession. Individuals who face legal repercussions as a result of disclosures made on Facebook frequently obtain the services of skilled criminal legal counsel. In addition to retaining the services of a skilled attorney, individuals in Los Angeles also benefit from understanding how self-incrimination occurs through Facebook use. 

Direct Admissions As Means For Facebook Self-Incrimination 

The most common way in which individual perform self-incrimination on Facebook is through direct admissions. Posting a comment that demonstrates an individual committed, was involved in, knew about, or in any way participated in the commission of an illegal activity can result in adverse legal action being taken against the individual. It must be noted that in addition to making comments on Facebook, posting revealing photographs or videos can also result in self-incrimination. 

Associations And Affiliations 

There are several other methods on Facebook besides direct admissions that individuals must be aware of that can result in self-incrimination. In addition to Facebook posts, individuals must be careful about who the individual connects with on social media. This type of self-incrimination tends to most often occur in issues that occur gang activity. Additionally, pictures on Facebook showing an individual involved with or even near stolen property can also potentially result in individuals facing adverse legal consequences. 

Self-Incrimination Through Location Details On Facebook    

Many individuals are not aware that there is another type of self-incrimination that occur on Facebook. This method of self-incrimination is more subtle than other methods. Details about an individual’s or any place that an individual “checked into” on Facebook, can self-incriminate an individual about certain activity. Sometimes, individuals are not even aware that some Facebook applications are tracking a user’s location without the user’s knowledge. 

Important Reminders About Self-Incrimination On Facebook 

In addition to these various methods of self-incrimination, there are some other important reminders of which individuals should be aware concerning Facebook. These reminders include the following: 

●      Even if social media activity is marked as private, there are still many ways that investigators can obtain the information that is desired. In some situations, law enforcement in Los Angeles and the rest of California is able to obtain to search an individual’s phone records. In other situations, law enforcement might even stealthily create a fake profile and friend a user to obtain information.

●      Even if a statement is not self-incriminating, individuals must be careful to determine whether information obtained from the statement could later be used in conjunction with other details to mount a case against the individual.

How An Experienced Attorney Can Help 

It is important for individuals to remember that whatever is posted in a public forum like Facebook is considered public and can subsequently be used against the individual in a court of law. If you are involved in a case that involves an investigation that involves Facebook or other types of social media, consider. 

Article information provided by RJ @

Post-Mortem Child Support

For a long time, Texas law said that unpaid child support terminated on the death of the noncustodial parent.  This year’s Texas legislature dramatically changed this law by establishing a system for post-mortem child support.

Senate Bill 617 deleted the clause stating that a noncustodial parent’s child support obligation terminates on that parent’s death.  The Bill added Texas Family Code section 154.016.  This section allows a court to require a noncustodial parent to purchase and maintain a life insurance policy or annuity to pay the unpaid child support in the event that the noncustodial parent dies while child support is still payable.

The Bill also added Texas Family Code section 154.015.  This section states that “the remaining unpaid balance of the child support obligation becomes payable on the date the obligor.”  But how is the balance determined?  Section 154.015 directs the court to discount future child support to present value but then also to consider benefits to the child upon the obligor’s death, such as life insurance.  The court then decides whether the child support obligation has been satisfied.  To the extent not satisfied, the child support obligation becomes a claim against the obligor’s estate.

Taken together, these legislative changes operate to protect the child from a loss of child support occasioned by the untimely death of a parent.  Texas Family Code section 154.015 applies only if the noncustodial parent died on or after September 1, 2007.  The other parts of the statute apply to an order for child support issued at any time, even before the Act passed.

Who Gets the Children When the Custodial Parent Dies?

The courts have made it clear that parents have a fundamental right to custody of their children.  For this reason, grandparents sometimes are denied visitation with their grandchildren when their child – the children’s mother or father – dies.  But what happens when the parents are divorced and the parent who had custody of the children dies?

The San Antonio Court of Appeals ruled that the surviving parent has the right to custody of the children when the custodial parent dies – unless it is shown that leaving custody with the surviving parent would cause a serious and immediate question concerning the children’s welfare.

This ruling came about when a custodial mother died.  The maternal grandparents took custody of the children while the father, who lived out of state, traveled to Texas.  The maternal grandparents filed suit to obtain legal custody of their grandchildren.  The father filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to obtain custody of his children.

The habeas corpus statute requires that children be returned to the person who has the right to custody of them unless it can be shown that there is “a serious immediate question concerning the welfare of the child.”  The grandparents argued that the children should have remained “with the people who can provide them the most comfort:  their grandparents and their nanny.”  But the San Antonio Court ordered the children returned to their father.  It held that “merely removing a child from a familiar environment does not rise to the level of a serious and immediate question concerning a child’s welfare in the habeas corpus context.”