Defending Against 209A and 258E Restraining Order Violations in Greater Boston

No. To secure a conviction for a 209A or 258E violation, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation was intentional or willful. Accidental contact, such as unexpectedly crossing paths in a public place, is not a crime, provided you immediately and safely remove yourself from the area the moment you recognize the protected party.

Yes. This is a common problem. The restraining order is against you, not the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot legally violate their own restraining order by reaching out to you, but the moment you respond, even to say “stop contacting me” or to discuss child logistics outside of a court-approved channel, you have committed a criminal violation. The firm frequently defends these cases by exposing the plaintiff’s manipulative conduct to the judge or jury to mitigate the circumstances or argue entrapment, but the safest legal defense is silence and distance.

No. A fundamental element of a 209A or 258E violation is that you had actual or constructive knowledge of the order’s terms. If you were never properly served by the police, never received notice in the mail, and were not present in court when the judge extended the order, you can win a motion to dismiss the charges based on defective service. If the Commonwealth cannot prove you knew about the order and its specifics, they cannot prove you intentionally crossed them.

By challenging the authenticity of the digital evidence. Digital communications can be unreliable and easily manipulated. Prosecutors try to prove these cases with screenshots of text messages, WhatsApp chats, or Instagram DMs. Serpa Law Office has successfully contested the authentication of digital evidence. The firm challenges the Commonwealth to prove definitively that you were the one holding the phone and hitting send. The firm looks for spoofing, lack of subscriber information, and the plaintiff’s own history of fabricating digital evidence.

Yes. This is a “third-party” violation. If you ask or direct someone else to pass a message to the protected person, the law treats it exactly as if you contacted them directly. However, the defense strategy here focuses on the chain of command. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you explicitly directed the third party to make contact. If a well-meaning family member reached out on their own initiative without your knowledge, you are not criminally liable.

You must defend both cases in court. You are at risk of a Bail Revocation Hearing (M.G.L. c. 276, § 58). If you are charged with a new crime (the violation) while on release for a pending charge, the prosecutor will likely ask the judge to revoke your original bail and hold you in jail for up to 60 days without bail. Defending the violation charge at arraignment is critical to preventing this 60-day jail hold. Exploring other options with the judge, like stricter conditions of release, is often successful.

No. While vacating the underlying civil order is helpful for your future, it does not erase a past violation. Once the police issue a criminal complaint or make an arrest for a violation, the District Attorney takes over the case. Only the prosecutor or the judge, under limited circumstances, can dismiss the criminal charges.

Only the stay away, no abuse, no contact and firearms provisions risk criminal violations. Not every provision in a 209A order carries the threat of jail time. Under Massachusetts case law and M.G.L. c. 209A, § 7, violating the order is only a criminal offense subject to immediate arrest if you breach one of these five specific protective conditions: (1) Failing to refrain from abuse; (2) Failing to abide by a “no contact” order, (3) Failing to stay away from a specific location (residence, workplace, or school), (4) Failing to vacate a shared household and (5) Failing to surrender firearms, ammunition, and your License to Carry (LTC).

All violations other than paragraphs 1-3 and the firearms provision are non-criminal. Section 3 of Chapter 209A and Chapter 258E give judges broad discretion to order you to do or not do many kinds of things as part of the order. The good news is that most of these violations are not criminal. Violating other administrative, financial, or domestic terms, such as missing a court-ordered child support payment, violating a temporary child custody arrangement, or failing to pay restitution, cannot result in a criminal violation charge. Those specific infractions are handled through civil contempt proceedings.