65 Madison Ave · Suite 420 · Morristown, NJ · 07960

¡Attention TAC People!

Press 'p' on your keyboard to make this palette go away.

Max width: 1200px
Color Hex R G B
Blue from Logo#003d65 0 61 101
Darker Blue#021020 2 16 32
Red from Logo#780500 120 5 0
Darker Red#400000 64 0 0
Gray from Modern Firm Site#f3f2ed 243 242 237
Bright, Light Blue#ccebff 204 235 255
Form Input Background Blue#accfe6 172 207 230
Slightly Darker Blue#002e4d 0 46 77
Slightly Darker Gray#e6e5e0 0 46 77
Darker Gray#cccbc7 0 46 77
Lighter Logo Blue#005c99 204 235 255
Login Link Blue#598fb3 89 143 179
Slighty Lighter Red#99150f 153 21 15
Slighty Darker Gray#b3b2ae 179 178 174
Hunter Green#013b23 1 59 35
Lighter Green #025935 ? ? ?
Beige Charcoal #1f1e1e ? ? ?
"Metallic Gold" #D4AF37 ? ? ?
"Darker Green" #012e1b ? ? ?

New Jersey Appellate Courts Stay Up With Technology

You may know that police in New Jersey are able to use GPS tracking devices to keep track of the movements of vehicles without the vehicle owners’ knowledge or consent. They are no longer alone in that endeavor — now some private citizens can do so, as well. A New Jersey appellate court ruled recently that installing a tracking device on a spouse’s vehicle during a divorce is not an invasion of privacy.

The plaintiff in the underlying action was a Gloucester County Sheriff’s Officer. He filed an invasion of privacy suit upon discovering his wife, prior to filing divorce, hired a private detective to spy on him in 2007.

When the woman wanted to know what her husband was up to, the detective agency recommended that the wife install a GPS tracking device on her husband’s vehicle. The GPS tracking device tracked him for 40 days.

New Jersey state law prohibits intrusion into private places. It was under that law that the man filed his civil claim against his ex-wife. He also filed suit against the private investigation firm.

A person is subject to liability for invasion of privacy if they intentionally intrude, physically or otherwise, on the solitude or seclusion of another person in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

The private investigator’s attorneys argued to the Court that the GPS tracked the complaining husband on public roads, and he had no expectation of privacy there. The appellate court agreed. Because the husband did not drive the vehicle to a secluded location or place where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, his privacy was not invaded by the placement of the GPS tracking device without his knowledge.

Source: The Newspaper, “New Jersey: Court Approves Private GPS Spying,” July 12, 2011

Begin Your Conversation

  • Disclaimer: Contacting our firm via the internet does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information through this form.

Contact Our Morris County Office



Morristown / Morris County Law Office

65 Madison Ave

Suite 420

Morristown, NJ 07960

Morris County Mediation Office Map