What is false alarm or report under PC § 42.06?
Texas Penal Code § 42.06 makes it a crime to knowingly initiate, communicate, or circulate a report of a bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency you know is false and that would ordinarily cause emergency action. It is a Class A misdemeanor, but a state jail felony when a school, college, or 911/public-service system is the target.
False alarm or report is the offense most people know by its real-world names: swatting, the false bomb threat, the fake 911 call, and the prank fire alarm. The statute that captures all of them is Texas Penal Code § 42.06. A person commits the offense if he knowingly initiates, communicates, or circulates a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency that he knows is false or baseless, and that report would ordinarily cause action by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies, place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, or prevent or interrupt the use of a building, room, place of assembly, or mode of conveyance.
A Texas appellate court laid out the structure plainly. In In re C.M.W., the court explained that § 42.06 makes it an offense "(1) to knowingly report an emergency (2) that one knows to be false, and (3) that would ordinarily cause action by an agency organized to deal with emergencies." In re C.M.W., No. 04-13-00449-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 19, 2014). Read together, the statute names a wide range of fake emergencies, demands that the report be one the person knew was false, and measures the danger by what the report would ordinarily trigger — not by whether anyone was actually fooled.
That breadth is deliberate. The harm § 42.06 targets is not the lie itself but the chain reaction it sets off: officers diverted from real calls, a campus locked down, a building evacuated, a SWAT team sent to a home over a fabricated hostage. The Legislature treats the false report as a stand-alone crime because the public cost lands the moment the report is believed, whether or not the caller could have carried anything out.
Elements the State must prove
To convict under § 42.06 the State must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt: a report of an emergency, made knowingly, that the person knew was false or baseless, and that would ordinarily cause emergency action. Breaking the statute apart shows where a defense gets traction.
To convict under § 42.06, the prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Breaking the statute into its parts shows exactly where a defense gets traction:
- A report of an emergency
- The communication must be a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency. A vague, angry, or sarcastic remark may not qualify as a "report" of an emergency at all. Whether words crossed that line is frequently the first battleground.
- Knowingly initiated, communicated, or circulated
- The accused must have knowingly made or passed along the report. A person who forwards a warning he believes is genuine, or who is misidentified as the source, has a real defense to this element. Under Penal Code § 6.03(b), "knowingly" means awareness of the nature of one's conduct or the circumstances surrounding it.
- That the person knew was false or baseless
- This is the heart of the case. The State must prove the accused knew the report was false or baseless when it was made. A genuine, good-faith belief that an emergency was real — even a mistaken one — defeats the charge. As the Fort Worth court put it, "The State must prove that at the time [the defendant] made the report he knew it was false or baseless." In re C.R.K., 56 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.).
- That would ordinarily cause emergency action (or fear, or interruption)
- The report must be one that would ordinarily cause an emergency agency to respond, place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, or interrupt the use of a building or vehicle. Importantly, the State does not have to prove the accused knew this would happen. In In re C.M.W., the court held that "knowledge is required for the first two sub-sections, but not for the third." That makes this element about the objective tendency of the report, not the speaker's intent about the response.
Because three of the four elements are about what was said and what the speaker knew, most contested § 42.06 cases are fought on knowledge and identity rather than on whether any emergency response occurred. The "agency action" element is comparatively easy for the State, so the defense usually concentrates fire on whether the accused actually made the report and whether he knew it was false.
What are the penalties for false alarm or report?
False alarm or report is a Class A misdemeanor by default — up to 1 year in county jail and a $4,000 fine. Under § 42.06(b) it becomes a state jail felony (180 days to 2 years and up to $10,000) when a school, an institution of higher education, or a public-service or 911 system is involved.
Section 42.06 carries a built-in enhancement that turns an ordinary misdemeanor into a felony based on what the false report is about. The default offense is a Class A misdemeanor. But under § 42.06(b), the grade jumps to a state jail felony when the false report concerns an emergency involving a public or private institution of higher education, a public primary or secondary school, or public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply, or other public service. Because the 911 system and the agencies that field emergency calls are public services, a swatting call routed through 911 typically lands in the felony tier.
| Classification | When it applies | Confinement | Maximum fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class A misdemeanor | Default offense — a false report that does not involve a covered school or public-service target | Up to 1 year in county jail | Up to $4,000 |
| State jail felony | False report of an emergency involving a higher-education institution, a public K–12 school, or public communications, transportation, water, gas, power, or other public service (including 911) | 180 days to 2 years in a state jail facility | Up to $10,000 |
| Felony enhancements | Prior state jail felony convictions can raise the punishment level under § 12.425; restitution may be added separately | Third-degree range possible with qualifying priors | Up to $10,000 |
Two practical points follow from this structure. First, the line between a year in county jail and a felony record can turn on a single fact — whether the report named or implicated a school or public system. That makes the precise wording of the alleged report, and how the charging instrument describes it, worth fighting over. Second, the fine and confinement are only part of the exposure: a § 42.06 case almost always brings a restitution claim for the cost of the response, which is negotiated separately and can dwarf the statutory fine.
How prosecutors prove a false report
Most § 42.06 cases are built from the defendant's own words and a short digital trail — the 911 recording, a text, a post, or a recorded statement. Because the falsity element is mental, the State proves it by inference from motive, timing, and the absence of any real emergency.
Most § 42.06 prosecutions are built from the defendant's own words and a short trail of digital evidence. The report itself — a 911 recording, a text, a social-media post, a note, or a recorded statement to a school official — is usually the centerpiece. Texas courts have recognized that in this kind of case the statement can be the crime itself rather than an admission to a separate crime, which changes how the evidence is treated. In In re C.M.W., the court held that a juvenile's out-of-court statements "were not out-of-court statements admitting to the commission of the crime, but rather were statements constituting the crime itself and were therefore not required to be corroborated." That removes a corroboration hurdle the defense might otherwise raise.
Because the falsity element is mental, the State proves it by inference. There is rarely direct evidence that someone "knew" a report was false, so prosecutors point to motive, timing, and the absence of any real emergency. Texas courts allow exactly that: a court "may use circumstantial evidence to determine the falsity of [a] report," including the defendant's motive. In re C.R.K., 56 S.W.3d at 291 (citing Frost v. State, 2 S.W.3d 625, 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd)). The flip side is that the same circumstantial record can cut for the defense — a documented belief that the threat was real, or an innocent reason for the call, undercuts the inference of knowledge.
The "agency action" element is easier for the State than many defendants expect. It does not require a massive response. In In re C.R.K., the court held that an officer's investigation — "she took statements from [witnesses], talked to Appellant, and wrote a report" — was enough to constitute action by an agency organized to deal with emergencies, and that a police officer stationed on a school campus qualifies as such an agency regardless of where she happens to be posted. So the defense usually concedes that some action occurred and concentrates fire on knowledge and identity instead.
Swatting, false bomb threats & restitution
Swatting — a false emergency call sent to provoke an armed response to a target's address — is the modern face of § 42.06 and usually charges as a state jail felony because it runs through 911. Restitution for the cost of the response is negotiated separately and can exceed the fine.
Swatting — placing a false emergency call to send an armed police response to a target's address — is the modern face of § 42.06. It usually charges as a state jail felony because the report runs through the 911 system, a public service. False bomb threats to schools and false fire reports occupy the same statute and the same felony tier when a campus or public facility is involved. These cases draw hard-charging prosecution because the response is dangerous and expensive, and because they frequently involve identifiable digital trails.
Restitution is where the financial stakes climb. Texas courts may order a defendant to pay restitution under Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.037 for losses caused by the offense. In a false-report case, the State may seek the cost of the emergency response — officer overtime, a SWAT or bomb-squad call-out, an evacuation, lost instructional time at a school. A defense lawyer scrutinizes those claimed amounts, separates genuine response costs from inflated estimates, and treats restitution as a negotiable term rather than a fixed number. Getting the restitution figure right can matter more to a client's life than the fine.
One recurring wrinkle: the same conduct can support a terroristic threat charge under § 22.07. Prosecutors often file both. Whether that is proper, and which charge the evidence actually fits, is a question worth litigating rather than conceding.
Under investigation for swatting or a false report? Your 911 call, text, or post is the evidence. Before you explain anything, talk to a defense lawyer.
Call (972) 370-5060County-by-county practice notes
Where a § 42.06 case is filed shapes how it moves. The firm represents clients across North Texas from its Frisco office, and false-report cases surface in each of the four core counties — often originating from a school district or a 911 center.
Where your case is filed shapes how it moves. The firm represents clients across North Texas from our Frisco office, and § 42.06 cases surface in each of the four core counties — often originating from a school district or a 911 center.
- Collin County. Felony cases are handled at the Collin County Courthouse (Russell A. Steindam Courts Building) in McKinney; misdemeanors run through the county courts at law. School-threat referrals from Frisco, Plano, McKinney, and Prosper ISDs are common, and juvenile matters route to the county's juvenile system.
- Dallas County. Felony false-report cases are heard at the Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas. The county's size means a high volume of 911-related and school-incident filings, and intake screening can vary by court.
- Denton County. Cases are filed at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton. Fast-growing school districts in Little Elm, Frisco (Denton side), and Denton ISD generate campus-threat referrals.
- Tarrant County. Felony matters are handled at the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth. Tarrant County appellate courts decided several of the leading § 42.06 school cases, so the local case law is well developed.
These are general observations about court structure and case origin, not predictions. Every county's prosecutors and judges exercise independent discretion, and outcomes depend on the specific facts.
What happens after a false-report arrest?
A § 42.06 case follows the ordinary Texas criminal track with wrinkles unique to false-report allegations. After arrest comes magistrate warnings and a bond decision; misdemeanors proceed by information, felonies by indictment. Pretrial — 911 audio, device extractions, charging-instrument challenges — is where the work happens.
A § 42.06 case follows the ordinary Texas criminal track, with a few wrinkles unique to false-report allegations. After arrest, the accused is taken before a magistrate for warnings and a bond decision. Misdemeanor cases proceed by information; felony cases (the school/911/public-service tier) require an indictment by a grand jury or a waiver. Pretrial is where the real work happens: the defense obtains the 911 audio, device extractions, account records, and any school or agency reports, and litigates motions to suppress statements and to challenge the charging instrument.
Charging-instrument precision matters here more than in many offenses. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed an early § 42.06 conviction because the information failed to allege which of the statutory results the false report would cause. Arnold v. State, 573 S.W.2d 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The lesson endures: a § 42.06 pleading has to track the statute, and a defective one is vulnerable. For juveniles — a large share of school-threat cases — the matter proceeds in juvenile court as alleged delinquent conduct, with its own detention, adjudication, and disposition stages and heightened protections for how a child's statement may be used.
The conviction itself is only part of the cost. A state jail felony for a false report creates a felony record that affects employment, professional licensing, and — for educators and aspiring educators — certification before the Texas Education Agency and SBEC. For students, a campus-threat adjudication can trigger school discipline, placement in a disciplinary alternative education program, and immigration consequences for non-citizens. Firearms eligibility, housing applications, and college admissions can all be touched. Because so many § 42.06 defendants are young, preventing a permanent record through dismissal, reduction, or a record-sealing path is often the most important thing a defense lawyer can do.
Can a false alarm or report charge be dismissed or expunged?
Yes — and that goal drives the defense from day one. Cases are dismissed or won at trial when the State cannot prove knowledge of falsity, when identity is in doubt, or when the words were not a genuine report. A dismissal, acquittal, or no-bill opens the door to an expunction under Chapter 55A.
Yes — and that goal drives the defense from day one. Cases are dismissed or won at trial when the State cannot prove the accused knew the report was false, when identity is genuinely in doubt, or when the words do not amount to a report of an emergency. A dismissal, an acquittal, or a no-bill opens the door to an expunction under Chapter 55A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which can erase the arrest record entirely. Where a case resolves through deferred adjudication, an expunction is usually unavailable, but an order of nondisclosure may seal the record from public view. Juvenile records have their own sealing procedures. The available path depends on how the case ends, which is exactly why the resolution should be engineered with the record in mind. See our overview of expunction vs. nondisclosure for how those routes compare.
L and L Law Group represents clients facing § 42.06 false-alarm and false-report charges — including swatting and school-threat cases — across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties. Co-founding partners Reggie London and Njeri London handle both the criminal-defense and collateral-consequence components of these cases. Free initial consultations are available; contact the firm at (972) 370-5060 or info@landllawgroup.com to schedule.
