Why Are Terrorist Threats a Crime in St. Louis, MO?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects your right to speech free from government regulation. This protection applies to everyone, no matter how unpopular or distasteful their words may be — it protects protesters, pornographers, and racists alike.
Your future is on the line. Call Combs Waterkotte's St. Louis making a terrorist threat lawyers at (314) 900-HELP for an immediate consultation.
However, the right isn’t absolute. The government can limit speech that presents a “clear and present danger” without violating the First Amendment.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court used a relevant hypothetical when it created the clear and present danger test that justifies Missouri’s law against terrorist threats. The opinion states that “free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Missouri’s laws don’t use the term “panic.” Instead, they ban threats involving a danger to life that are “frightening” or disregard the risk of an evacuation. In essence, the state intended for these laws to meet the same objectives as the court’s “shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre” hypothetical, including:
- Preventing a stampede
- Avoiding a waste of first responders’ time and resources
- Protecting businesses from shutting down during a threatened or false incident
The laws accomplish these goals by imposing harsh penalties for the accused’s words, even when no one suffers injuries and the accused takes no steps to carry out the threat.
Missouri’s Statutes Against Making a Terrorist Threat
The Missouri Revised Statutes include three laws prohibiting terrorist threats in the chapter regarding offenses against public order. Additionally, the state’s assault laws ban threats that cause a victim to fear immediate physical injury.
Before examining the Missouri statutes, it’s important to understand how these laws use the words “terrorism” and “terrorist.”
These terms don’t refer to terrorism as a war tactic or tool for political change. Consequently, the state doesn’t limit its laws to international terrorists, Islamic terrorists, or domestic terrorists, although any of these people can make terrorist threats.
Rather, “terrorism” and “terrorist” are used in their literal sense to mean an act or person that causes terror. Thus, a college student who calls in a bomb threat to get out of an exam could be considered a terrorist under Missouri law.
Prosecutors may use the following statutes to pursue punishment for verbal threats:
First-Degree Terrorist Threats
Someone makes a first-degree terrorist threat when they knowingly make a communication that falls into one of the following categories:
- A threat to cause an incident or condition that endangers lives
- A false report of an incident or condition that endangers lives
- Words or acts creating a false belief or fear that an incident or condition exists that endangers lives
Prosecutors must prove that the purpose of the threat was to frighten 10 or more people or trigger an evacuation, quarantine, or closure of any of the following:
- Buildings
- Inhabitable structures
- Places of assembly
- Transportation facilities
The law prohibits both express and implied communications.
An express communication directly states the nature of the incident or condition. Yelling “fire!” is an example of express communication. An implied communication, meanwhile, suggests but doesn’t state the nature of the incident or condition. Saying “I smell smoke” is an example of an implied communication.
Prosecutors must prove two distinct states of mind to meet the elements of the statute.
First, they must prove that the purpose of the communication was to frighten 10 or more people or trigger an evacuation, quarantine, or closure. Under Missouri law, someone behaves purposefully when they act with the conscious objective of causing the outlawed result.
Second, they must prove that the communication was made knowingly. To act knowingly, you must understand the nature of the communication and know that someone will hear it and believe that lives are in danger.
Second-Degree Terrorist Threats
A second-degree terrorist threat occurs when someone makes a communication that falls into the same three categories described in the first-degree terrorist threat statute.
However, rather than proving that the person acted purposely, prosecutors must only prove that the accused acted recklessly. Specifically, they must show that the accused recklessly disregarded the risk of causing an evacuation, quarantine, or closure.
Recklessness is when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and their disregard represents a gross departure from the standard of care expected under the circumstances.
Thus, someone might act recklessly if they make a statement that’s most likely false and consciously choose not to research its truthfulness.
Consider the example of someone shouting, “There’s an active shooter in the building!” after hearing a loud bang. The person could look into the source of the noise or call a security guard. By deliberately choosing not to investigate, the person might act with the level of recklessness required under the statute.
Third-Degree Terrorist Threats
Third-degree terrorist threats apply to the same types of communications. However, rather than acting recklessly or purposefully, the person acted with criminal negligence.
Under Missouri law, criminal negligence occurs when someone fails to be aware of a situation, and their failure is a gross departure from the care expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances.
The difference between recklessness and criminal negligence is that recklessness requires conscious ignorance of risk, while criminal negligence can occur through laziness or carelessness.
For example, suppose that someone stages a flash mob with dozens of people in makeup and costumes to appear to be bloody and severely injured. The artist’s failure to realize that such actions could cause panic might constitute criminal negligence sufficient for a third-degree terrorist threat charge.
Fourth-Degree Assault
Threats can also trigger fourth-degree assault charges. In the common law, battery occurred when someone made harmful or offensive contact, and assault occurred when someone caused a victim to fear imminent physical injury. Missouri’s fourth-degree assault law reflects the common law definition of assault.
Although prosecutors could pursue fourth-degree assault charges for making a threat, they might opt for terrorist threat charges. Fourth-degree assault requires proof that the accused acted purposefully, while second- and third-degree terrorist threat charges can occur recklessly or negligently.
Possible Defenses Against Charges of Making a Terrorist Threat in St. Louis, MO
Your attorney might employ either of the following criminal defense strategies against charges for making a terrorist threat:
Statutory Exception
The statutes prohibiting terrorist threats make specific exemptions for statements made in good faith to prevent harm. Consequently, repeating something you overheard and reasonably believed might not qualify as a terrorist threat. Similarly, reporting the news might not fall under the statute.
However, if your intent is anything other than good faith, such as profit or attention, you might still violate the statutes prohibiting reckless or criminally negligent terrorist threats.
Lack of Intent
Since prosecutors must prove your intent to make a threat, you can defend yourself by showing a lack of intent.
You might have lacked intent if you didn’t think anyone would hear your statement. Similarly, if you reasonably believed your statement wouldn’t cause fear or trigger an evacuation, quarantine, or closure, you might not have committed a crime.
