What Texas Penal Code 33.07 Covers And How A Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Defends It
Online impersonation charges can land hard, especially when you feel like you're being judged before anyone has looked closely at what actually happened. A screenshot, an angry complaint, or a “this came from your account” allegation can put your job, your name, and your freedom on the line fast.
A recent example shows how real this can get in Texas. In the San Antonio area, a former Hollywood Park city official was arrested and accused of using other people’s identities to send communications and file complaints, with investigators pointing to account-recovery links and IP address activity as part of the trail. Allegations are not proof, but the case shows the playbook: Once law enforcement thinks it can connect the online activity to a person, the situation stops being “online drama” and becomes a criminal case.
That's why Texas Penal Code § 33.07 matters. The law is specific about what counts as online impersonation and requires proof of key elements, such as a lack of consent, identity, and intent. A Texas criminal defense lawyer will usually start by slowing the process down and forcing the State to prove those elements with real evidence, not assumptions.
What Counts As 'Online Impersonation' Under Texas Penal Code 33.07
The law criminalizes two main categories of conduct.
Fake Profiles And Posts Using Someone Else’s Name Or Persona
Under subsection (a), the State can file charges if it believes a person, without the other person’s consent and with intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten, used that person’s name or persona to do either of the following:
- Create a web page on a commercial social networking site or another internet website, or
- Post or send messages through a commercial social networking site or another internet website (with limitations written into the statute).
This is the part of the law most people picture when they hear “online impersonation.” A fake social media profile, a fake dating profile ("catfishing), or messages sent from an account pretending to be someone else can fall under subsection (a) if the State claims the required intent and lack of consent.
The biggest hurdle for the State in subsection (a) cases is the "Attribution Gap." Just because a fake profile was created using a home’s Wi-Fi doesn't mean the person who pays the internet bill is the one who created it.
In Montgomery County, we see cases where multiple people (e.g., roommates, family members, or even neighbors on a guest network) had access to the same IP address. Without "device-level" forensics, the State’s case is often built on a house of cards.
Messages That Make Someone Think The Real Person Sent Them
Subsection (b) is structured differently. It covers sending email, instant messages, texts, or similar communications that reference identifying information belonging to another person, without consent, where the sender:
- Intended to cause the recipient to reasonably believe the other person authorized or transmitted the communication, and
- Intended to harm or defraud someone.
In real life, subsection (b) shows up in situations like impersonation by text, spoofed communications, or messages designed to trick a recipient into trusting the message because it appears to come from the victim.
Penalties Can Be A Misdemeanor Or A Felony
Online impersonation isn't automatically “minor” just because it happened online.
- Subsection (A) Is A Third-Degree Felony: A third-degree felony in Texas is punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison and an optional fine up to $10,000.
- Subsection (B) Is Usually A Class A Misdemeanor: Also, it becomes a third-degree felony if the State alleges the intent was to solicit a response by emergency personnel. A Class A misdemeanor can carry up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $4,000.
The difference between misdemeanor and felony exposure changes everything: bond, court strategy, job consequences, and long-term record risk.
What Prosecutors Have To Prove In A 33.07 Case
Every online impersonation case has a few pressure points. The State typically has to prove:
- No Consent. Consent problems are common in cases involving shared devices, shared passwords, or complicated personal history.
- The Required Intent. Subsection (a) requires intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten. Subsection (b) requires intent to make a recipient believe the message was authorized by the other person, plus intent to harm or defraud.
- Identity And Authorship. The State has to connect the conduct to the defendant, not just show that the conduct happened.
As a former Montgomery County prosecutor, Amanda Webb knows that the State often relies on "low-hanging fruit" evidence like screenshots. However, screenshots can be easily manipulated or faked. A strong defense demands the original source data (JSON files or server logs). If the State can't produce a verified digital chain of custody that connects the defendant's specific device to the impersonation at a specific timestamp, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard has not been met.
Common Defenses To Texas Online Impersonation Charges
Most defenses are fact-driven. The goal is to identify what the State can't prove and lock the case to the statute’s exact elements, not the emotion of the complaint.
Here are defenses that often matter in § 33.07 cases:
- Mistaken Identity or Lack of Proof: Many accounts and devices are shared. Some are hacked. Some are accessed by multiple people in a home or workplace. A case may hinge on whether law enforcement collected meaningful evidence tying account creation and control to a specific person, instead of assuming.
- No Criminal Intent: “Intent” isn't a vibe. It's an element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Subsection (a) is not satisfied unless the State proves intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten. Subsection (b) is not satisfied unless the State proves deception intent plus intent to harm or defraud. If intent is based on speculation, overreach, or a one-sided story, that is a defense opening.
- Consent Was Present or Reasonably Believed: Consent issues are messy in the real world. People grant access, share logins, and allow others to post on their behalf, then later withdraw permission or reinterpret what happened. If consent existed or the facts create a reasonable doubt about consent, that can undermine the charge.
- The Alleged Conduct Doesn't Match the Subsection Charged: Prosecutors still have to match the facts to the exact statute. If the complaint fits subsection (b) but the State filed subsection (a), or vice versa, that mismatch can matter.
- Digital Evidence Problems: Deleted logs, incomplete subpoenas, poor chain of custody, and overreliance on screenshots can weaken a case. A defense may focus on what is missing and why it matters.
A good defense also considers whether the State is piling on charges. Section 33.07 allows prosecution under this statute, another law, or both when the same conduct could fit multiple offenses. That can create leverage for narrowing the case to what the evidence truly supports.
What To Do If You Are Under Investigation For Online Impersonation
If police contact you about an online impersonation allegation, the next steps can shape the case more than most people realize. Here are practical moves that protect you:
- Do Not Explain It In A Phone Call Or Informal Interview. What you say can be used later, even if you meant it to clear things up.
- Do Not Contact The Complainant. That can escalate the situation and create new allegations.
- Preserve Evidence. Don't delete accounts, messages, or devices. Deleting can look like consciousness of guilt even when it's panic.
- Get Defense Counsel Involved Early. The earlier a defense team can start demanding proof and controlling the narrative, the better your position usually is.
Frequently Asked Questions: Texas Online Impersonation
Can I be charged with a felony for a "parody" account?
Texas law requires an "intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten." True parody or satire is protected speech under the First Amendment. However, the line is thin; if the State argues your parody account was actually intended to "harm" someone’s reputation or "intimidate" them, you could face third-degree felony charges. We focus on proving the lack of criminal intent to protect your right to free speech.
What is the difference between "impersonation" and "harassment" in Texas?
While they often overlap, Harassment (§ 42.07) usually involves repeated, annoying, or alarming communications directly to a person. Online Impersonation (§ 33.07) is specifically about using someone else’s identity to post or send messages. Because Online Impersonation is often a felony and Harassment is usually a misdemeanor, the State may "up-charge" a case to gain leverage.
If I had the other person’s password, is it still impersonation?
Possessing a password is not the same as having consent to impersonate. If you use a shared password to log in and send messages while pretending to be that person with the intent to harm them, you can still be charged under § 33.07. The defense here often centers on the "scope" of consent (what you were allowed to do with that access).
Can "spoofed" text messages lead to a felony charge?
Yes. If you send a communication that appears to be authorized by someone else (Subsection B) with the intent to solicit a response from emergency personnel (like a "swatting" call), the charge is elevated to a third-degree felony. Even without the emergency element, sending deceptive texts to defraud someone is a serious Class A misdemeanor.
Can the police search my phone without a warrant for an impersonation claim?
Generally, no. Under the Fourth Amendment and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, law enforcement usually needs a specific search warrant to access your digital data. If the police seized your phone or searched your social media accounts without a valid warrant, we may be able to file a Motion to Suppress, which could lead to the evidence being thrown out and the case being dismissed.
Talk To A Conroe Criminal Defense Lawyer About 33.07 Charges
If you're facing an online impersonation investigation in Conroe or Montgomery County, you need a defense strategy built around the elements of Texas Penal Code § 33.07, the evidence the State actually has, and the evidence it failed to collect.
The Webb Firm, P.C. is led by Attorney Amanda Webb, a former Montgomery County prosecutor, and our team knows how these cases get built, how they get overcharged, and where the weak points usually are. If you have been accused of online impersonation, contact us online to schedule a free consultation.
"They worked really fast to get my case dismissed. They answered all my questions and had my back. Great team." - Madison D., ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
