What is interference with an emergency call in Texas?
Under Penal Code §42.062, it is an offense to knowingly prevent or interfere with another person's ability to call for emergency help, or to recklessly render a phone or other device unusable for that purpose. It is a Class A misdemeanor, up to a year in county jail, and a state jail felony if the accused has a previous conviction under the same section. In practice it is the charge that gets added when someone takes, blocks or breaks a phone during an argument, and it very often arrives alongside an assault charge.
- Two separate offenses in one section: knowingly preventing or interfering with a call, and recklessly making a device unusable.
- No one has to be hurt and no call has to connect. Interfering with the ability to call is the offense.
- A prior conviction under this section makes it a state jail felony, 180 days to 2 years. Only a prior under this same section does that.
- "Emergency" is defined in the statute, and it is narrower than it sounds: fear of imminent assault, or property in imminent danger of damage or destruction.
- The request for help does not have to be to police. The statute names law enforcement, medical facilities and any agency whose primary purpose is safety.
- It usually comes with an assault charge, and the two can be answered separately. One failing does not carry the other.
- If the case carries a family violence finding, the consequences reach far past the sentence.
This charge is rarely the reason police were called. It appears afterwards, when an officer asks whether anyone tried to call for help and what happened to the phone. A hand over a screen, a phone taken out of a room, a cable pulled from a wall during an argument: each of those can be charged under §42.062, and because it is a Class A misdemeanor it carries the same maximum as the assault it usually accompanies. Peter M. Barrett has defended these cases in Dallas County since 1994, across more than 150 jury trials, and the case review is free and confidential. This guide explains what the statute actually requires.
The two offenses in §42.062
- Subsection (a): knowingly preventing or interfering. Knowingly preventing or interfering with another individual's ability to place an emergency call or request assistance, including by an electronic communications device, from law enforcement, a medical facility, or another agency whose primary purpose is the safety of individuals.
- Subsection (b): recklessly rendering a device unusable. Recklessly rendering unusable an electronic communications device, including a telephone, that would otherwise be used to place an emergency call or request assistance.
The mental states differ, and that difference is the defense in a good many of these cases. Subsection (a) requires knowing conduct aimed at the ability to call. Subsection (b) requires only recklessness, but it requires that the device was actually rendered unusable. A phone that was taken and handed back, or that still worked, is not obviously a (b) case, and a phone taken in anger without any thought about calling for help is not obviously an (a) case.
What "emergency" means here
The word is defined in §42.062(d), and it is more specific than everyday usage. An emergency is a condition or circumstance in which an individual is, or is reasonably believed by the person calling to be, in fear of imminent assault, or in which property is, or is reasonably believed to be, in imminent danger of damage or destruction.
Two things follow. First, the belief is judged from the perspective of the person trying to call, and it only has to be reasonable, not correct. Second, there has to be an emergency within that definition at the time. An argument that was heated but involved no fear of imminent assault and no danger to property is not automatically within the section, and that is a question of fact a jury decides.
Grading
| Circumstance | Level | Range |
|---|---|---|
| First offense under §42.062 | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in county jail, $4,000 fine |
| With a previous conviction under this same section | State jail felony | 180 days to 2 years |
Read the enhancement narrowly, because it is narrow. It is triggered by a prior conviction under this section. A previous assault, a previous family violence case or any other record does not convert a first §42.062 charge into a felony by itself.
Why it matters more than its grade suggests
Most of these charges are filed alongside an assault involving a family or household member, and the consequences that follow do not come from §42.062 itself. They come from the family violence finding the court can enter under art. 42.013 where the offense involved family violence as defined by Fam. Code §71.004.
That finding is what carries forward: it changes what a later assault charge becomes, it affects firearm rights, and under Gov't Code §411.074 an offense involving family violence can never receive an order of nondisclosure. A plea that looks like a quick resolution of a misdemeanor can therefore carry a permanent consequence. The family violence guide sets out that machinery in full, and it should be read before any plea in a case like this.
It usually comes with an assault charge
Where both are filed, they are separate offenses with separate elements. An assault under §22.01(a)(1) needs bodily injury. §42.062 needs interference with the ability to call. Neither depends on the other.
That cuts both ways. The State can lose the assault and still convict on the phone, which is why a §42.062 count should never be treated as a makeweight. It also means the phone count can fail on its own elements while the assault proceeds, and the two should be negotiated with that in mind rather than as a package.
Where these cases are defended
- Was there an emergency as the statute defines it. Fear of imminent assault, or imminent danger to property. An argument alone is not that, and the complainant's own account at the time often says so.
- Was the conduct knowing, or reckless, or neither. Taking a phone to stop someone posting, reading messages or calling a relative is not the same as preventing a call for help, and the difference is the element.
- Was the device actually rendered unusable. For a subsection (b) case this is required. A working phone, a second phone in the room, or a call that was in fact placed are all facts about the element.
- What the call records show. Phone records, 911 logs and device data establish what was attempted and when, and they frequently do not match the narrative in the report.
- The 911 recording. Where a call was made, what it captures in the background is often the strongest evidence either way, and it has to be requested early.
- The family violence finding, not the sentence. In a first offense case the objective is usually to avoid the finding and keep the record capable of being sealed, which matters for far longer than the fine.
Common questions
Is interference with an emergency call a felony in Texas?
Not on a first offense. Under Penal Code §42.062 it is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in county jail and a fine of up to $4,000. It becomes a state jail felony, 180 days to 2 years, only where the accused has previously been convicted under that same section.
Can you be charged for taking someone's phone during an argument?
Yes, if the State can show you knowingly prevented or interfered with their ability to call for emergency help, or recklessly made the device unusable for that purpose. Taking a phone for another reason, during an argument that involved no fear of imminent assault or danger to property, does not automatically meet the statute, and the mental state and the definition of emergency are both contestable.
Does the call have to actually go through?
No. The offense is interfering with the ability to place an emergency call or request assistance. A completed call is not required, and neither is any injury. That is why this charge can stand even where the underlying assault allegation does not.
What counts as an emergency under this statute?
§42.062(d) defines it as a circumstance where an individual is, or is reasonably believed by the person calling to be, in fear of imminent assault, or where property is, or is reasonably believed to be, in imminent danger of damage or destruction. The belief is judged from the caller's point of view and only has to be reasonable, but there does have to be an emergency within that definition.
Does a previous assault conviction make this a felony?
No. The enhancement in §42.062(c) is triggered only by a previous conviction under §42.062 itself. A prior assault, a prior family violence case or any other criminal history does not by itself turn a first interference charge into a state jail felony, though it can affect the sentence and the negotiation.
Can this charge be sealed later?
It depends on whether a family violence finding is entered. Government Code §411.074 bars an order of nondisclosure for an offense involving family violence as defined by Family Code §71.004, and a court can enter that finding under art. 42.013. Avoiding the finding, rather than minimizing the sentence, is usually the real objective in a first offense case.
I was arrested for this along with an assault. What should I do?
Say nothing about what happened to the phone, and do not contact the complainant, especially if a bond condition or emergency protective order is in place, because that is a separate offense. Preserve your own phone records and messages. Treat the interference count as a real charge rather than an add-on, because it carries the same maximum as the assault and can survive on its own. The consultation is free and confidential: (214) 526-0555, answered 24/7 for emergencies.
The law this article describes, at the source.
This page is general legal information about Texas law, not legal advice about your case. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, so confirm the current rule with a licensed Texas criminal defense attorney about your specific facts. Request a free, confidential case review.