Charged Over a Hacked Account? Start With the Evidence.

When someone else had access to your account, the central question is who was actually typing. In any hacked account online solicitation charge defense Texas case, that question drives the work, and the state’s records must be tested against it.

Your Account Was Used, and Now You Face an Online Solicitation Charge

If someone else used your account, you may face a charge for messages you never sent. Maybe you logged into a chat or social app and later learned that police say explicit messages came from your name. Or a roommate, ex-partner or family member may have known your password.

Texas takes online solicitation of a minor very seriously. That solicitation offense is a second-degree felony.

The Texas Attorney General’s cyber safety page gives Texas-specific information about online solicitation of minors.

The stakes feel enormous, and they are serious. The punishment range depends on the felony category that applies to the charge, as described above. Under § 33.021(f-1), punishment moves up to the next higher category if the state shows the offense happened during regular public or private primary or secondary school hours and the actor knew or reasonably should have known the minor was enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school at the time of the offense.

This page covers one question: who was typing. It is written for a man who says someone else had access to his account, device or username.

Why Who Was Typing Matters in a Texas Case

The case often turns on whether the messages can be tied to you, not just to an account name. An account is a login, and anyone who has that login can use it.

Common access facts include:

• a shared family computer or tablet
• a password saved in a browser or app on a device
• a home internet connection that several people use
• a roommate, ex-partner or family member who knew the login
• a teenager or other household member who used the device
• an account that someone else took over without permission

Each fact gets examined one at a time against the evidence. Account access comes first, because it shows whether the account was open to other people at the time of each message.

Before you meet with a lawyer, write down who had access, when, on which devices and on which networks. Note whether anyone knew your password. Exact dates and device names help most. Keep this list private and do not share it in texts or posts.

The Records the State Uses and What Each One Can and Cannot Show

Each record answers a different question, and no single record names the person at the keyboard.

• IP address records: an internet provider can show which connection used an address at a given time. They do not show who sat at the device.
• Platform account history: login times, IP addresses, devices and message timestamps tied to the account.
• Device evidence: seized phones, computers and tablets, with call and app logs, saved passwords, browser history and file dates.
• Sting and chat records: screenshots, transcripts or recordings made by an investigator, which should be checked against what the platform actually recorded.

A record that places a device at a location is not the same as proof that a particular person used it. Many online cases involve federal task forces. The federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program investigates technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation, so these records may come from that kind of investigation.

How We Test IP Records, Device Logs and Account History

The defense tests each record against the others and against a timeline built from your own facts. A mismatch between two records can matter as much as a match.

• Request the complete records through discovery, not only the investigator’s summary.
• Line up every message against login sessions, IP addresses, device identifiers and the household’s daily schedule.
• Check whether one connection served several people or devices. An IP address can point to a household rather than one person.
• Ask for an independent examination of seized devices. Look for remote access tools, other user profiles, saved logins and activity that does not match your habits.
• Compare the investigator’s chat captures with the original data. Check whether any messages were altered or removed.

Sting cases raise a separate question: how the contact started. Under Texas Penal Code § 8.06, entrapment is a defense when the person engaged in the conduct charged because a law enforcement agent induced him to do so, using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Merely giving someone an opportunity to commit an offense is not entrapment.

We explain each finding in plain language, so you can weigh your options before you decide anything.

What to Expect From Consultation to Court Dates

The process moves from a free consultation to records review, discovery and court dates. Each stage turns on the charge and the evidence in your case.

1. Free initial consultation. It is confidential and without obligation to continue. You share the charge, the timeline and who had access to your accounts and devices.
2. Document collection. You gather account information, device details, household access facts and any arrest or court papers.
3. Discovery. The defense requests the state’s evidence, including provider records, device extractions, sting documentation and investigator reports.
4. Records and device review. The timeline is built and tested against the evidence, and any needed independent examinations are arranged.
5. Court proceedings. Motions, hearings and decisions come next. Each option is explained before you choose.

The pace of each stage varies with the court’s schedule and the evidence. No timeline can be promised.

Why Barbieri Law Firm for This Defense

Barbieri Law Firm is an all-women criminal defense firm in Frisco, Texas. The firm defends people accused of sex crimes and assaultive offenses across Collin County, Dallas-Fort Worth and Texas.

Heather Jean Barbieri, Board Certified, Criminal Law — Texas Board of Legal Specialization, leads the firm.

• The firm defends online sex crimes, child sex crimes, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault and family violence cases.
• Our team reviews the account records, device data and sting documentation, then explains your options in plain language.
• The firm describes its work by what it does, and it does not predict how any case will end.

No lawyer can promise a result, and that includes us.

Questions People Ask About a Shared or Compromised Account

A shared or compromised account raises one central question: whether that access can be tied to the messages.

If someone else had access to your account, device or username, and you now face an online solicitation accusation, the next step is a conversation about those facts. Call (972) 424-1902, send your case details through our contact page, or schedule a free consultation.

Attorney responsible for this site: Heather Barbieri, Barbieri Law Firm, Frisco, Texas.