New Jersey Superior Court

New Jersey: Court Approves Private GPS Spying

New Jersey: Court Approves Private GPS Spying
Appellate court in New Jersey sees no issue with private use of GPS devices to secretly track motorists.

Police are not alone in the ability to secretly use GPS devices to track someone without his knowledge, the New Jersey Superior Court's Appellate Division ruled Thursday. A three-judge panel made this decision in the context of a privacy invasion suit brought by Kenneth R. Villanova against Innovative Investigations Inc after his now ex-wife hired the private-eye company to spy on him. She intended to document alleged infidelities prior to filing for divorce in May 2008. At the firm's suggestion, Villanova's wife installed the tracking device on her husband's GMC Yukon-Denali which followed the vehicle's every move for forty days.

Kenneth Villanova argued that the incident violated privacy statutes. He added a privacy violation claim against his wife during divorce proceedings but had to file the present case separately against the private investigator who followed him. State law forbids intrusion into private places.

"One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person," the appellate division wrote in a 1989 case summarizing the statute.

Attorneys for the private investigators countered that Villanova was tracked on public roads and had no expectation of privacy. Villanova had no tangible proof that he drove in any secluded location, which the court saw as the only place one's privacy could be invaded.

"We find plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive," Judge Joseph F. Lisa wrote. "We hold that the placement of a GPS device in plaintiff's vehicle without his knowledge, but in the absence of evidence that he drove the vehicle into a private or secluded location that was out of public view and in which he had a legitimate expectation of privacy, does not constitute the tort of invasion of privacy."

The court found that it made no difference whether Villanova's movements were tracked for forty minutes or forty days in the eyes of the law.

A copy of the decision is available in a 70k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Villanova v.

NJ Speeding Ticket Law Update: Court Finds New Jersey Speeding ...

<span style=”font-size: large”><span style=”text-decoration: underline”> Court Finds NJ Speeding Radar Device Inadmissible and Unreliable </span></span>

Defendant Green was convicted of speeding for driving sixty-three in a forty-five mile per hour zone. Before his trial, he submitted numerous discovery requests to the police department, the prosecutor, and the court. Most of his requests were denied or limited in scope by the trial judge. In addition, he attempted to prove that the speed limit in the area was not what the officer said it was by submitting a Department of Transportation report. But the trial court ruled that this report was hearsay and did not admit it into evidence. At trial, Defendant Green attempted to challenge the reliability of the radar device by testifying as an expert witness. The trial court did not allow him to testify because he did not provide an expert witness report to the prosecution and because he did not qualify as an expert in the field. At trial, the judge took judicial notice of the reliability of the Stalker Lidar device. Defendant Green appealed the trial court’s decision. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division held that:

1. The following discovery errors warrant a new trial:

a. The trial judge erred in limiting the scope of a discovery request for “complete history of the officer’s training on the radar device” to only his laser card, which indicates that he was trained by the manufacturer in using the device. Any of the officer’s specific training and experience with the device is discoverable.

b. The trial judge erred in denying discovery requests for training and operating manuals on proper use of the device by the officer. Such requests were clearly relevant to whether the officer properly operated the device on the day in question.

c. “The officer’s September 8, 2008, log book is certainly relevant to the officer’s testimony and would have enabled defendant to challenge the accuracy of the officer’s ability to recall the events on that date.”

d. The trial judge erred when he refused to order the prosecutor to provide defendant with the repair history of the Stalker Lidar device for the twelve months preceding the request. This evidence should have been in the possession of the government and is relevant to proving that the machine was not working properly.

I'm at Superior Court of New Jersey - Passaic Vicinage (77 Hamilton Street, Grand Street, Paterson)

I'm at Superior Court of New Jersey - Passaic Vicinage (77 Hamilton Street, Grand Street, Paterson)

Trying to make a dollar out of 15 cents (@ Superior Court of New Jersey - Passaic Vicinage)

I just ousted as the mayor of Superior Court of New Jersey - Passaic Vicinage on !

Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court and, at law, in the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey

Such a decision, being an exercise of jurisdiction, is binding, and must remnin in full force, until regularly reversed by a superior court, ...

In the Matter of Karen Quinlan: The complete legal briefs, court proceedings, and decision in the Superior Court of New Jersey

Borough of Sayreville, a municipal corporation, City of South Amboy, a municipal corporation, County of Middlesex, a municipal corporation, and Board of Public Utility Commissioners, Department of the Public Utilities of the State of New Jersey, a state administrative agency, plaintiffs-respondents, vs. the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a corporation, defendant-appellant, civil action, on appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division ... : supplemental brief for plaintiffs-respondents, Borough of Sayreville, City of South Amboy and County of Middlesex

Central reporter..., all cases determined in the courts of last resort

Comrs. of Newark (NJ) 571 25. An order of court, under the Act of April 10, 1873 , ... The superior courts of New Jersey, modeled after the English courts of ...

Atlantic reporter, Second series

Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued April 6, 1992. Decided April 7, 1992. The Superior Court, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, refused to issue ...