In January of 2026, an appellate court in Massachusetts concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that a defendant had used Snapchat to violate his protective order. This case highlights the fact that it is very easy to impersonate other people online, and defendants could potentially face false allegations because of this. If you are facing criminal charges because of an alleged protective order breach, consider speaking with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Boston.
The Background of Commonwealth v. Bustard
This case involves a defendant who faced allegations of violating a protective order against his ex. Throughout their relationship, the pair communicated through the popular social media app Snapchat. During this time, the defendant used a very specific username with a “bitmoji” of a man with slicked-back hair and a beard. After their breakup, the ex blocked this account and prevented the defendant from communicating with her through this channel.
Next, the ex received a Snapchat message from a different account with a different name. This account also featured a similar bitmoji to the defendant’s blocked account. The message was simple: “Miss me.” She then obtained a protective order against the defendant, preventing him from communicating with her “directly or indirectly,” including through other people.
Years later, the ex posted about her upcoming birthday and engagement party plans. She then received further communication from the same account that had sent the “miss me” message. The second message read: “You happy.” The ex’s sister then viewed the account using her device and discovered the display name had changed to the defendant’s first name.
Evidence Did Not Show That the Defendant Sent the Message “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”
The trial court found the defendant guilty of violating the protective order. The defendant then appealed the conviction, and the appellate court reviewed the decision. The key question was whether the trial court established that the defendant was the same person who sent the “you happy” message beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although the court recognized that only a “preponderance of evidence” is required to establish authentication, the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard applies to identity. In order to establish both, prosecutors need to show evidence of familiarity between the two individuals, such as pet names and references to things that only the defendant and the ex knew about.
The appellate court concluded that “you happy” was an extremely short message with no real context, and it is therefore impossible to determine whether the defendant sent it. As a result, the appellate court concluded that the trial court should have found the defendant not guilty.
Can a Defense Attorney in Boston Help With a Protective Order Violation?
If you are facing allegations of breaching your protective order because someone impersonated you online, it is imperative that you speak with a defense attorney in Boston as soon as possible. While this recent case shows that “mistaken identity” is a valid defense in the digital world, you may need to file an appeal after an initial negative decision in court. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law to learn more about your next steps.