Section 33.02 is the principal Texas computer crime statute, and it reaches far more ordinary conduct than its name suggests. The most common Harris County prosecutions under it do not involve hacking in any technical sense — they involve one person logging into another person's account.
What the Statute Prohibits
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.
A separate provision, subsection (b-1), applies when the access is made with the intent to defraud or harm another, or to alter, damage, or delete property, and covers access without consent, access in violation of a clear and conspicuous prohibition, and access in violation of a contractual agreement.
Penalties
| Circumstance | Offense level |
|---|---|
| Basic unauthorized access (subsection (a)) | Class B Misdemeanor |
| Two or more prior convictions under Chapter 33, or a government or critical infrastructure system | State Jail Felony |
| Access with intent to defraud or harm — escalating with the aggregate amount of loss | From Class C Misdemeanor up to a First-Degree Felony |
Where the offense is committed with intent to defraud or harm, the offense level is driven by the aggregate amount involved in the same way theft offenses are graded, so the loss calculation is frequently the most contested issue in the case.
How These Cases Arise
- Domestic and divorce cases. Logging into a spouse's or former partner's email, iCloud, bank, or social media account. This is the single most common fact pattern, and it often accompanies allegations under Section 16.02 (interception) and Section 16.06 (tracking devices).
- Former employees. Accessing a former employer's systems, downloading files before resigning, or continuing to use credentials after termination.
- Business disputes. Partners locked out of systems they believe they co-own.
Defenses
Effective consent. The central issue in most cases. Consent can be express or implied, and it can arise from a course of conduct — shared devices, jointly used accounts, credentials freely given. The State must prove the access was without effective consent.
Ownership. The statute protects the "owner," defined as a person with a greater right to possession than the actor. In marital and business contexts, ownership is often genuinely disputed.
Knowledge. The access must be knowing. Automatic logins, saved credentials, synced devices, and shared cloud backups produce access without any knowing act.
Authority never revoked. For former employees and former partners, if access was granted and never withdrawn, the "without consent" element is weak.
Identification. IP addresses identify connections, not people. Shared networks, VPNs, and shared devices frequently make attribution the weakest part of the State's case.
Related
- Section 16.02 — Unlawful interception
- Section 33.022 — Electronic Access Interference · Section 33.023 — Electronic Data Tampering
- Houston federal criminal defense — the same conduct can be charged federally under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Charged in Harris County?
Brian Foley is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a former Harris County Felony Chief Prosecutor; Luis Baez is a former Trial Bureau Chief. Call or text (713) 703-1718 for a free, confidential consultation.