Mike likes to post on Facebook (I’ll spare you the plethora of selfies…. that one above is quite enough) and, like many, he does not…
On September 22nd, 2016 Mike’s unnamed baby momma took out a restraining order against him (and this followed Mike’s prior arrest for cocaine possession and an act of domestic violence against the same woman). After being served with the DVRO, and believing that his baby momma was involved with another man, Mike took to Facebook, posting a photo of his baby momma’s “pelvic region” along with the caption “Embarrassment number one, 5,000 to go”.
Apparently the woman was identifiable in the Facebook post because of an easily recognizable tattoo on her arm, and that was enough for cops to arrest Mike on charges of “sexual cyber-harassment” (see F.S. 784.049).
But if it wasn’t, and adding insult to injury (not to fail to mention evidence to the State’s case), there is also proof that Mike texted a friend of his baby momma threatening to release more sexually explicit images if she “lets a guy around their child.”
Most State’s have “revenge porn” (a/k/a “sexual cyber-stalking”) laws, and Florida law makes it a crime (a 1st degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in jail) to post sexually explicit photos of another without their consent. It matters not whether the photos were taken and possessed freely, voluntarily, and with consent; what matters is a lack of consent to publish the images (as Florida law holds that someone who agrees to have such a sexually explicit photograph taken maintains “a reasonable expectation the image will remain private”). Florida’s “revenge porn” law makes it a 1st degree misdemeanor to post explicit pictures of someone else without their permission. “Revenge porn” falls under the category of sexual harassment and is defined as the “online posting of explicit photos of people without their permission”. F.S. 784.049 defines “Sexually cyberharass” as meaning “to publish a sexually explicit image of a person that contains or conveys the personal identification information of the depicted person to an internet website without the depicted person’s consent, for no legitimate purpose, with the intent of causing substantial emotional distress to the depicted person.”
And so Mike is in a world of trouble now, being detained on $50,000.00 bond for the 1st degree misdemeanor (which is an extremely high bond for a misdemeanor) in the Stock Island Jail awaiting Arraignment on November 28th, 2016. Mike will also face a violation of his restraining order, as well as a civil contempt commitment in that case, and his felony cocaine possession case is also open (he faces 5 years on that one).
Memo to the Folks: Apart from being turned in by a victim for a cyber crime you can count on the fact that prosecutors can and do scour the internet looking for any incriminating information which they can use against you in any pending criminal case. Thus Haber’s Social Media Rule #5: If it’s even remotely relevant to a pending charge then prosecutors will cram your social media posts, and history (sites visited, searches made, etc) down your throat in court. Watch HaberPA’s YouTube VideoFAQ / Webisode on Social Media and the Law, including “Haber’s Rules of Social Media # 1 – 5” by clicking on the link below…
https://www.youtube.com/c/michaelhaberlaw / http://habercriminallaw.blogspot.com