A Washington man allegedly used Amazon Alexa's 'Drop In' feature to connect to a device inside his former wife's home as part of a broader surveillance pattern that also included tracking her credit card purchases and accessing her email account. Court records show the alleged conduct continued despite a court-issued no-contact order.
The Washington Court of Appeals upheld a five-year domestic violence protection order against the man in an unpublished opinion issued on 9 November 2026, rejecting his challenge to the ruling. The order protects the woman until 25 November 2030.
How Her Ex-Husband Allegedly Used Alexa
According to court records, the couple married in 2006 and had one son together. Their relationship took a violent turn on 7 December 2020, when an argument ended with the husband strangling his wife and covering her mouth when she tried to get their son to call emergency services.
He was arrested and later pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault. Following the incident, he moved out and filed for divorce.
On 7 September 2021, a criminal court issued a no-contact order prohibiting him from contacting his wife or coming within 1,000 feet of her home, school, workplace or any location where she was present.
Despite the restrictions, he allegedly continued monitoring her activities. On 10 October 2021, he visited the family home while his wife was away. He had gone there to do yard work and reportedly knew she was out of town because he had been tracking her credit card purchases.
The following month, he allegedly used an Amazon Alexa device inside the house to 'drop in' on the household. The court explained that the feature allows users to connect to linked Alexa devices remotely, enabling them to speak or listen through the devices. However, the judgment does not establish what he heard through the device or how he retained access to it.
That same month, he allegedly accessed his wife's email account and changed its password without her knowledge, adding another layer to the alleged digital surveillance.
Digital Surveillance and Physical Stalking
The alleged monitoring also extended into the woman's everyday life. She reported seeing her former husband following her and their son on multiple occasions. He allegedly began jogging through her neighbourhood, despite not having done so during their marriage, and waited at a Starbucks he knew she regularly visited.
He also allegedly followed her car, hid in bushes to watch her, sent anonymous packages and appeared at their son's sporting events.
He faced three charges of violating the no-contact order, but they were later dropped as part of a plea agreement. The City of Seattle subsequently charged him with stalking and ordered him to undergo electronic home monitoring, but later dismissed the charge without providing an official explanation.
Appeals Court Upholds Five-Year Protection Order
The woman had previously obtained a restraining order as part of the divorce proceedings, but it was due to expire on 1 September 2025. As the expiry date approached, her former husband began posting online about how he planned to 'outlive' her.
She found the posts particularly frightening because he had been regularly interacting with a woman previously convicted of killing her husband. Fearing for her life, she sought a new protection order on 8 September 2025.
A court commissioner issued a domestic violence protection order following a hearing on 25 November 2025, finding that he had continued surveilling her even after the criminal case concluded. The commissioner also noted that the man had never completed a court-ordered domestic violence intervention programme.
The man subsequently challenged the commissioner's decision, but a superior court judge denied his request for revision and adopted the protection order as the court's own. He then appealed.
Her former husband argued that he had moved out of state and that the five-year protection order lacked sufficient justification. The appeals court rejected his relocation argument, noting that Washington law does not allow courts to deny protection orders simply because the person subject to them has moved away. It found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's decision.
The court also noted that he had cited a legal case that did not exist, stating: 'We will not consider arguments supported by fictional authority.'
The court affirmed the protection order and awarded the woman attorney fees and costs associated with the appeal.
The judgment illustrates how smart-home devices, online accounts and financial information can feature in allegations of technology-enabled stalking, extending concerns about surveillance beyond physical encounters.
