Misuse of official information is a Texas offense under Penal Code § 39.06. It is a third-degree felony (2–10 years and up to $10,000), except the coercion variant under § 39.06(a)(3), which is a Class C misdemeanor. Below: the controlling statute, the full punishment range, the elements the State must prove, defense strategies, and what to do if you have been charged in Collin, Dallas, Denton, or Tarrant County.
Free, Confidential Case Review
Tell us what happened. A defense attorney reviews every submission — usually within the hour during business hours.
Published 2026-07-05 · Reviewed by Reggie London and Njeri London, Co-Founding Partners · Last reviewed: 2026-07-05 · Next review: 2027-01-05
Peer Recognition
Martindale-Hubbell® 2026 Honors
Independent peer-review ratings recognizing legal ability and ethical standards.
Awards reflect peer-reviewed ratings only. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Controlling statute:Texas Penal Code § 39.06 — Misuse of Official Information Classification: Third-degree felony § 39.06(e); Class C misdemeanor for the coercion offense under § 39.06(a)(3) Punishment range: Third-degree felony — 2 to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000 (§ 12.34). Coercion variant — fine up to $500, no jail (§ 12.23).
What is misuse of official information under Texas law?
Misuse of official information sits in Chapter 39 of the Penal Code, the chapter that governs abuse of office. The offense targets a specific kind of corruption: turning access to nonpublic government information into private advantage. It reaches three different actors and three different kinds of conduct, all inside a single statute.
Under Texas Penal Code § 39.06, a public servant commits an offense if, in reliance on information the servant has access to by virtue of the office or employment and that has not been made public, the person:
§ 39.06(a)(1) — acquires or aids another to acquire a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by the information;
§ 39.06(a)(2) — speculates or aids another to speculate on the basis of the information; or
§ 39.06(a)(3) — coerces another into suppressing or failing to report that information to a law-enforcement agency.
Two more subsections widen the net. Under § 39.06(b), a public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, the servant discloses or uses information for a nongovernmental purpose that the servant has access to by means of the office and that has not been made public. And under § 39.06(c), a person — any person, not just a government employee — commits an offense if, with that same intent, the person solicits or receives such nonpublic information from a public servant. Subsection (c) is what allows a private developer, investor, or fixer to be prosecuted alongside the insider who leaked to them.
The definitional key is subsection § 39.06(d): “information that has not been made public” means any information to which the public does not generally have access and that is prohibited from disclosure under Chapter 552 of the Government Code — the Texas Public Information Act. That two-part definition is the single most important thing to understand about the felony. If the information was already generally accessible, or if it was in fact releasable under Chapter 552, a core element is missing.
Elements the State must prove
To convict under § 39.06, the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The exact elements depend on which subsection is charged, but the common architecture looks like this:
Public-servant status (subsections (a) and (b))
For the (a) and (b) theories, the defendant must be a public servant as defined in Penal Code § 1.07 — an officer, employee, or agent of government, including elected and appointed officials, and (for the coercion offense) a school administrator. Subsection (c) drops this element and applies to anyone.
Access by virtue of the office
The information must have come to the defendant through the office or employment. Information the defendant would have known anyway, or learned from a public source, does not satisfy this element.
The information “has not been made public”
Under § 39.06(d), the State must show the information was not generally accessible to the public and was prohibited from disclosure under Government Code Chapter 552. This is a legal question layered on a factual one, and it is frequently the weakest link in the State’s case.
The prohibited act
Acquiring a pecuniary interest or aiding another to do so (a)(1); speculating or aiding speculation (a)(2); coercing suppression of a report to law enforcement (a)(3); disclosing or using the information for a nongovernmental purpose (b); or soliciting or receiving it (c).
The culpable mental state
For subsections (b) and (c), the State must prove specific intent — intent to obtain a benefit, or intent to harm or defraud another. For (a)(1) and (a)(2) the conduct itself (acquiring a pecuniary interest, speculating) supplies the object. Intent is proven with emails, timing, financial records, and the relationship between the parties.
What are the penalties for misuse of official information?
Grading turns entirely on which subsection is charged. Section 39.06(e) sets the default at a third-degree felony; § 39.06(f) carves out the coercion offense as a Class C misdemeanor. The table below states the ranges verified against the current statute.
Offense / subsection
Classification
Confinement
Fine
Acquiring pecuniary interest — § 39.06(a)(1)
Third-degree felony
2–10 years (TDCJ)
Up to $10,000
Speculating on the information — § 39.06(a)(2)
Third-degree felony
2–10 years (TDCJ)
Up to $10,000
Coercing suppression of a report — § 39.06(a)(3)
Class C misdemeanor
None
Up to $500
Disclosing/using for private purpose — § 39.06(b)
Third-degree felony
2–10 years (TDCJ)
Up to $10,000
Soliciting/receiving nonpublic info — § 39.06(c)
Third-degree felony
2–10 years (TDCJ)
Up to $10,000
With one prior felony (habitual, § 12.42)
Punished as 2nd-degree
2–20 years (TDCJ)
Up to $10,000
A few practical notes on the range. First, a third-degree felony is probation-eligible, and many first-offender public-integrity cases resolve with community supervision, restitution where a victim can be identified, and, frequently, resignation from the office. Second, the felony variants trigger the habitual-offender math in Penal Code § 12.42: one prior felony conviction bumps the punishment range to that of a second-degree felony (2–20 years). Third, the Class C coercion offense under (a)(3) is charged and tried like a traffic ticket in a justice or municipal court, but a conviction is still a permanent finding of official misconduct that can end a public career.
How do prosecutors prove a § 39.06 case?
Misuse-of-information cases are documentary. Unlike a street offense that turns on eyewitnesses, a § 39.06 prosecution is built from records: the government file that contained the nonpublic information, the access logs showing the defendant pulled it, the emails or texts routing it to an outside party, and the financial trail — a land purchase, a bid, a stock trade, a payment — that shows the benefit. Prosecutors reconstruct a timeline and argue that the sequence proves intent.
Three evidentiary battlegrounds recur. The first is the “not made public” element. Because § 39.06(d) ties the definition to Chapter 552, the defense can litigate whether the information was actually exempt from disclosure or was, in fact, public record. Public-integrity units at the district-attorney level and the Texas Attorney General’s office handle these cases and know the Public Information Act cold; so should defense counsel. The second is attribution — whether the defendant, as opposed to a colleague with the same access, is the person who pulled and passed the information. The third is intent, where the State leans on timing (“he bought the land eleven days after he saw the route map”) and the defense offers innocent explanations for the same facts.
Hypothetical illustration (not a real client matter): a city planning official learns through a nonpublic staff memo that a road-widening project will route through a particular block. Before the plan is announced, the official quietly options two lots on that block through a relative. That fact pattern maps onto § 39.06(a)(1) — acquiring, and aiding another to acquire, a pecuniary interest in property that may be affected by nonpublic information. A companion § 39.06(c) charge could reach the relative who took the option knowing where the information came from.
What defenses work against a § 39.06 charge?
Because the statute is written in narrow, element-specific terms, the strongest defenses attack the elements directly rather than appealing to sympathy. On every § 39.06 matter we evaluate:
The information was already public or releasable. If the data was generally accessible or was not prohibited from disclosure under Government Code Chapter 552, the § 39.06(d) definition is not satisfied and the felony fails. This is often the case-dispositive issue.
No access “by virtue of the office.” If the defendant learned the information from a public source, from the press, or in a personal capacity rather than through the government position, a required element is missing.
No prohibited intent. Subsections (b) and (c) require intent to benefit, harm, or defraud. A disclosure made for a legitimate governmental purpose, by mistake, or without any intent to gain is not a § 39.06(b) offense. Intent inferred solely from timing can be rebutted with the real reason for the transaction.
No pecuniary interest / no speculation. The (a)(1) and (a)(2) theories require an actual pecuniary interest or speculation tied to the information. If the transaction was unrelated to the information, or the “interest” is speculative in the colloquial rather than statutory sense, the theory does not fit.
No coercion. The (a)(3) misdemeanor requires coercion — a threat or pressure as defined by the Penal Code. A request, or an ordinary supervisory instruction, is not coercion.
Attribution and chain of custody. Where several employees share access, the State must prove this defendant handled the information. Forensic review of access logs, email headers, and device data can create reasonable doubt.
First Amendment and whistleblower context. Disclosures of matters of public concern, or protected reporting of wrongdoing, can implicate constitutional and statutory protections that the felony was never meant to override.
§ 39.06 vs. bribery, official oppression & abuse of official capacity
Section 39.06 rarely travels alone. Chapter 39 and the bribery statutes in Chapter 36 overlap, and prosecutors routinely plead several theories from one set of facts. Knowing the boundaries matters, because each carries a different grade and a different defense.
Abuse of official capacity — § 39.02. This offense covers a public servant who misuses government property, services, personnel, or any thing of value that has come into the servant’s custody by virtue of the office. Its grade runs on a value ladder from Class C up to a first-degree felony. Where § 39.02 punishes misuse of tangible resources, § 39.06 punishes misuse of information. The same official who runs a private venture on public time and equipment (39.02) and trades on a nonpublic memo (39.06) can face both.
Official oppression — § 39.03. Official oppression targets a public servant who, acting under color of office, subjects another to mistreatment, unlawful arrest, or denial of rights the servant knows is unlawful. It is a Class A misdemeanor (a third-degree felony only in the narrow PEIMS/Texas Education Agency data-accuracy scenario). It addresses abuse of authority against a person, not the exploitation of information.
Bribery — § 36.02. Bribery is a second-degree felony and reaches the exchange — offering, giving, soliciting, or accepting a benefit as consideration for an official act. Section 39.06 does not require a bribe or an agreement; the misuse of the information itself is the crime. When money changes hands for a leak, the State may charge both bribery and misuse of official information.
Tampering with a governmental record — § 37.10. Tampering addresses making, altering, destroying, or using a false governmental record. It concerns the integrity of the record, whereas § 39.06 concerns the improper exploitation of true, nonpublic information. The two are distinct but frequently indicted together in public-corruption files.
The process: from investigation to resolution
A misuse-of-information case usually begins quietly, with an audit finding, a whistleblower complaint, an open-records dispute, or a referral to a public-integrity unit — long before any arrest. That pre-charge window is where a defense lawyer can do the most good: responding to a grand-jury subpoena, controlling the flow of documents, and, where appropriate, presenting exculpatory context to prosecutors before an indictment issues.
Once a felony charge is filed, the case moves through the familiar Texas sequence. After arrest and magistration, a personal or surety bond is set, often with conditions relevant to a public official (no contact with witnesses, no access to the government systems at issue). Because these are felonies, the State proceeds by indictment — a grand jury must return a true bill. Pretrial litigation then centers on discovery under the Michael Morton Act (CCP art. 39.14), motions to quash a defective indictment, and motions attacking the “not made public” element. Many cases that survive those motions still resolve short of trial — through dismissal, pretrial diversion, or a plea to a reduced charge — but the leverage to get there is built in the pretrial phase.
County-by-county practice notes
L and L Law Group defends public-integrity and misuse-of-information cases across North Texas from our Frisco office. Felony § 39.06 cases are heard in the district courts of the county where the conduct occurred:
Collin County. Felony cases are indicted and tried at the Collin County Courthouse (Russell A. Steindam Courts Building) in McKinney. Public-corruption matters involving county or municipal officials are handled by the district courts there.
Dallas County. Felonies are heard at the Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas. The Dallas County District Attorney maintains a public-integrity function, and the county’s open-records volume makes the Chapter 552 “not made public” question a live issue in many cases.
Denton County. Felony matters are filed at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton. Cases involving school-district and municipal officials appear here.
Tarrant County. Felonies are tried at the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth. As in the other counties, a § 39.06 file is often part of a broader Chapter 39 / Chapter 36 corruption indictment.
Because misuse-of-information cases so often involve state agencies, the Texas Attorney General’s public-integrity unit and the local district attorney may both have a role, and venue can be contested. We evaluate venue and referral questions at the outset of every case.
Enhancements & collateral consequences
The direct enhancement path for the felony variants runs through Penal Code § 12.42: a prior felony conviction raises a third-degree offense to second-degree punishment (2–20 years). Beyond the statutory range, the collateral consequences of a § 39.06 conviction are often the client’s central concern:
Public employment and office. A conviction for official misconduct typically ends the position and can bar future public employment. For elected officials, a final felony conviction can trigger removal and disqualification under other law.
Professional and occupational licenses. Lawyers, engineers, real-estate professionals, educators, and others hold licenses that a fraud or official-misconduct conviction can suspend or revoke. Educator certificates are administered by the SBEC/TEA and are especially exposed.
Firearms. A felony conviction triggers the federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and the Texas restriction in Penal Code § 46.04.
Immigration. For non-citizens, a fraud-related or official-misconduct offense can carry serious immigration consequences; a criminal-defense evaluation should account for status before any plea.
Record relief. A conviction is not eligible for expunction; deferred adjudication that is successfully completed may later support an order of nondisclosure in some cases. We assess record-relief options as part of the overall strategy.
Key Legal Terms
Misuse of Official Information (§ 39.06)
A public servant’s use of nonpublic information gained through the office to acquire a pecuniary interest or speculate, or the disclosure or use of that information for a private purpose — and any person’s solicitation or receipt of it — with intent to benefit, harm, or defraud. A third-degree felony under § 39.06(e).
Information That Has Not Been Made Public (§ 39.06(d))
Information the public does not generally have access to and that is prohibited from disclosure under Chapter 552 of the Government Code (the Public Information Act). Both parts must be met; releasable or already-public information does not qualify.
Pecuniary Interest
A financial stake in property, a transaction, or an enterprise. Under § 39.06(a)(1) it is an offense for a public servant to acquire, or aid another in acquiring, such an interest in reliance on nonpublic official information.
Coercion Offense (§ 39.06(a)(3))
Coercing another person into suppressing, or failing to report, information to a law-enforcement agency. Unlike the other subsections, this variant is a Class C misdemeanor under § 39.06(f).
Frequently Asked Questions
What is misuse of official information in Texas?
Misuse of official information is a crime under Penal Code § 39.06. It punishes a public servant who relies on nonpublic information gained through the office to acquire a pecuniary interest or speculate, or who discloses or uses that information for a private, nongovernmental purpose with intent to benefit or harm someone. A private person who solicits or receives that information with the same intent can also be charged.
Is misuse of official information a felony in Texas?
Yes. Under § 39.06(e), a violation is a third-degree felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. The one exception is the coercion offense in § 39.06(a)(3) — coercing someone into suppressing or failing to report information to a law-enforcement agency — which § 39.06(f) grades as a Class C misdemeanor.
What does “information that has not been made public” mean under § 39.06?
Subsection (d) defines it as information the public does not generally have access to and that is prohibited from disclosure under Chapter 552 of the Government Code, the Public Information Act. If the information was already publicly available or was properly releasable under Chapter 552, that definitional element is not met and the felony theory can fail.
How is § 39.06 different from abuse of official capacity?
Abuse of official capacity under § 39.02 covers a public servant who misuses government property, services, personnel, or things of value, and its grade rises with the value misused. Section 39.06 targets the misuse of nonpublic information itself — trading on it, disclosing it, or coercing its suppression — rather than misusing tangible resources. Prosecutors often charge both from the same facts.
Can a private citizen be charged under § 39.06?
Yes. Subsection (c) reaches any person who, with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm or defraud another, solicits or receives nonpublic information from a public servant. A contractor, investor, or tipster who cultivates an inside source can face the same third-degree felony as the public servant who leaked the information.
What are common defenses to a misuse of official information charge?
Defenses focus on the statute’s narrow elements: the information was already public or releasable under Chapter 552; the defendant did not access it through the office; there was no intent to benefit, harm, or defraud; or, for coercion, no genuine coercion occurred. Attribution, authorization, and the absence of any pecuniary interest are also frequent themes.
Does a public official have to actually profit for it to be a crime?
Not necessarily. Subsection (a)(1) requires acquiring or aiding another to acquire a pecuniary interest, but subsection (b) is satisfied by disclosing or using the information for a nongovernmental purpose with intent to benefit or harm another — no completed profit is required, only the prohibited intent. That distinction matters when a deal never closes.
Is tipping someone off about a pending investigation a crime?
It can be. If a public servant discloses nonpublic law-enforcement information to help someone, with intent to benefit or harm another, § 39.06(b) may apply. Separately, coercing a person into not reporting information to a law-enforcement agency is punished under § 39.06(a)(3) as a Class C misdemeanor. The facts and the specific intent control which theory fits.
What is the punishment range for a third-degree felony in Texas?
Under Penal Code § 12.34, a third-degree felony carries 2 to 10 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and an optional fine up to $10,000. Prior felony convictions can raise the range through the habitual-offender provisions in § 12.42. A conviction also carries lasting consequences for public employment and professional licenses.
Should I talk to investigators if I am a public employee under review?
Speak with a criminal defense lawyer first. Public-integrity and misuse-of-information cases are built on documents, emails, and timelines, and early statements are frequently the strongest evidence the State later uses. You can decline questioning and ask for counsel; doing so is not evidence of guilt and protects your rights before any charge is filed.
Reggie London co-founded L and L Law Group with a focus on federal criminal defense, complex felony defense, and TEA/SBEC matters. Licensed in Texas, admitted to TXND and TXED.
Njeri London co-founded L and L Law Group with a focus on DWI defense, family violence cases, and juvenile defense. Licensed in Texas, admitted to TXND and TXED.
Charged with Misuse of Official Information? Talk to L and L Law Group.
Co-founding partners Reggie London and Njeri London personally handle every case. Free consultation. Frisco, Texas.
L&L Law Group represents clients across North Texas counties for DWI, assault, drug crimes, juvenile defense, outstanding warrants, bond reduction, and expunction matters.
