A 209A restraining order charge tied to a Snapchat message usually comes down to identity. The Commonwealth has to show the message came from you, not just from an account that looks like yours or a screenshot that points in your direction. A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Commonwealth v. Bustard, gives a useful example of how courts scrutinize proof of who actually sent an electronic message.
These cases can move quickly and feel intensely personal. Courts often impose strict no-contact conditions right away, and confusion about what counts as contact can create new exposure. A clear understanding of what the Commonwealth must prove can help you protect yourself from avoidable mistakes early on.
209A Restraining Order Violations and Electronic Contact
A 209A order can prohibit contact in person, by phone, in writing, electronically, or through someone else. Prosecutors often file a violation charge when the protected person reports a call, text, social media message, or a message sent through an app like Snapchat.
The Commonwealth still has to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes that a valid order existed, that you knew about the order, and that a prohibited contact occurred. In an electronic case, there is one more step that becomes central: showing that you were the sender.
Snapchat Evidence and Identity Proof in Court
Snapchat can create confusion because display names can change, usernames can look similar, and avatars can be copied or set up to resemble someone else. Some people share devices. Others share logins. Friends can spoof accounts for drama, retaliation, or a misguided prank.
Courts do not assume that a message came from you just because it looks familiar. Prosecutors usually try to connect an account to you through a combination of details, such as the username, display name, avatar, the content of the message, prior history between the parties, and what else was happening around the time the message was sent. Strong cases tend to include additional evidence that ties the account to you, not only to your name.
Commonwealth v. Bustard and What the Court Looked At
In Bustard, the charge involved a Snapchat message sent to the protected person while a 209A order barred contact. The message came from a different Snapchat account than the one the protected person had previously used to communicate with the charged person, and the protected person had blocked the prior account. The prosecution relied on details such as the appearance of the Bitmoji avatar and the circumstances that day involving other people connected to the situation.
The Appeals Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the charged person sent the message. The decision focused on the lack of context in the message, the limited identifying information tied to the account, and the gaps that left too much room for speculation about who actually sent it.
For someone dealing with a pending 209A violation allegation, the takeaway is practical. A screenshot can start a case, but proof of identity can still be disputed, especially when the evidence only suggests a possibility rather than a reliable link.
How These Cases Commonly Get Charged
Police often apply for a complaint after hearing the protected person describe the message and providing a screenshot or phone display. The investigating officer may not be able to obtain platform records right away. In some cases, there is no subpoena to Snapchat at all before charges are issued.
That process means early paperwork may be thin. The first version of the case might rely heavily on what the protected person reports and what appears on the screen. A defense strategy can focus on what is missing and what the Commonwealth still has to prove.
Practical Defense Issues in Social Media 209A Cases
A solid defense often starts with the simplest questions. Who had access to the device? Who knew the protected person’s username? Who had the motive to stir up conflict? Whether the account data actually ties to you, rather than to a general name or avatar style. Whether the message content includes anything that only you would know.
Defense counsel may also look closely at preservation and chain of custody. Screenshots can be incomplete. Notifications can mislead. Apps can display names in ways that do not prove account ownership. A careful timeline often matters, including what you were doing when the message was sent.
A second issue involves conditions of release. Courts often impose no-contact conditions even beyond the 209A order. Any contact through friends, family, or social media can create additional exposure. A defense plan should include clear boundaries that you can follow without confusion.
Steps to Take if You Are Accused of a Snapchat 209A Violation
Save what you can, without altering anything. Keep your devices. Preserve messages, notifications, and account settings. Write down a timeline while details are fresh, including where you were and who had access to your phone or accounts.
Avoid trying to fix the problem directly. Reaching out to the protected person, even to explain, can create a new allegation. Changing accounts or deleting apps can also look suspicious, even when your intent was to reduce conflict. A measured approach usually starts with legal advice that fits the exact order terms and the facts of the allegation.
Contact a Boston Criminal Defense Attorney
A 209A violation charge tied to a social media message can move fast and create immediate consequences. The Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy helps people in Boston respond to allegations of violating a restraining order by carefully reviewing identity proof, electronic evidence, and the surrounding timeline. For a free consultation, call (617) 367-0450.