NJ Judge Rules GPS Tracking of Spouse Legal 241
Endoflow2010 writes "The use of a GPS device to track your whereabouts is not an invasion of privacy in New Jersey, a state appellate court panel ruled today. Based on the battle of a divorcing Gloucester County couple, the decision helps clarify the rules governing a technology increasingly employed by suspicious spouses — many of whom hire private investigators. No state law governs the use of GPS tracking devices, and the ruling, which does not affect police officers, is the first to address the issue, said Jimmie Mesis, past president of the New Jersey Licensed Private Investigators Association. 'We only use it when we are sure we have the appropriate conditions,' [private investigator Lisa Reed] said, noting that investigators make sure GPS devices are installed in cars on public streets and not private areas, and that the spouse must have some legal or financial connection to the car."
Honestly... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Proof. Useful in divorce proceedings. As opposed to speculation, which is not.
Re: (Score:3)
If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship?
Because proof of guilt is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about infidelity, crime, or divorce cases. Look at the question I was answering.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about infidelity, crime, or divorce cases. Look at the question I was answering.
Ok...
If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship ?
Because proof of guilt is important.
If not divorce or infidelity in a marriage, then exactly what relationship were you talking about severing? And for what cause? It looks like I'm not the only one missing your point, so perhaps some clarification is in order? <shrug>
Re: (Score:2)
If not divorce or infidelity in a marriage, then exactly what relationship were you talking about severing?
If somebody wants to break up with somebody else, they typically would like to have a solid factual reason why.
Here's what people want to avoid:
"I'm breaking off our relationship because you come home late every night, I think you're with somebody else!"
"Umm... I'm working overtime so I can pay the mortgage off sooner. See, here's my check that's way higher than normal. Well, I'm not guilty, but since you don't trust me it's over. Bye!"
I think my post is unclear because it's deceptively simple: Instinct
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it?
Yes. People like to have reasons to do stuff. You are not exempt from this.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Informative)
You've clearly never been married. "proof of guilt" is not a moral or psychological issue: it's a *financial* one. If you can't prove your wife cheated on you, you may find yourself in a position where your ex-wife's now shacking up with your boss, your kids are taken away from you, your ex-wife has half your stuff and you owe alimony for the rest of your life.
I'm not making any moral judgements on anyone involved here, but the reason the knives come out during divorces is not because people are petty and vindictive. Well, they are petty and vindictive, but things get really vicious because gigantic piles of cash are involved.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be content to just walk away and move on but some people feel they have something worth fighting for.
Re: (Score:3)
If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship? Seems to me that suspicion of that magnitude is pretty much in itself a sign of a failed relationship. I mean, if there's no trust, what's the point of the relationship at all? Why not just end the relationship and go your own way? People get divorced or break up every single day...it's not the end of the world.
So that they don't get stuck on the short end of the divorce settlement. Or, so that they can use the evidence to get a divorce settlement that will punish the other party for cheating on them.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids? House? Shared commitments?
We're not all 23 and dating, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Adultery is one of the grounds for divorce. While NJ did move out of the dark ages in 2007 when it added reasonable no-fault divorce grounds there are still some advantages to having fault grounds (you can skip some of the waiting periods the no-fault grounds usually require, and some people still hope they'll get a judge who will "punish" the other person in the "which stuff do I get and who pays who alimony/child support" part).
Re: (Score:2)
That is somewhat of a Soviet legacy. Divorce was comparably easy in the USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Relationships are organic. They can heal. In my opinion, giving up on a marriage simply due to a lack of trust is a sign of weakness of character. I'm not saying that there aren't any good reasons for divorce, because there are. (abuse and criminal conduct come to mind)
I am saying that a marriage is a promise of "till death do us part". That should mean something.
Wife or private investigator? (Score:2)
This ruling is very backwards IMO. This is the part that bothers me the most:
"many of whom hire private investigators" AND "investigators make sure GPS devices are installed in cars on public streets and not private areas"
I don't have a problem with a wife installing one on her husband's car while it's on their private property. I don't even have a problem with an investigator installing it there as long as the wife is present at the time. If you're married, the car is partially hers anyway. If you can't st
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense like it is. The couple was divorcing, so probably don't live together anymore. If the wife (or PI) goes to the husband's house and installs the GPS while the car is in his driveway, she is trespassing. That would mean a law has been broken, and therefore the installation of the device could be illegal. Having a PI install a GPS on your own car, when the car is not on someone else's private property, makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling is very backwards IMO. This is the part that bothers me the most:
"many of whom hire private investigators" AND "investigators make sure GPS devices are installed in cars on public streets and not private areas"
I don't have a problem with a wife installing one on her husband's car while it's on their private property. I don't even have a problem with an investigator installing it there as long as the wife is present at the time. If you're married, the car is partially hers anyway. If you can't stand the thought of something like that happening, don't get married (or live together), and your stuff will never be partially hers.
However, I have a big problem with anyone messing with someone else's car while the car is on public streets. Does anyone else think this is completely backwards?
It's hard to say for certain without asking the person who was quoted, but I think they are talking about installs when the spouse who hired them is not present. If the suspected spouse is gone and the car being tracked is at a shared house while the spouse who hired them is present, I doubt the investigator would have a problem with doing the install. Like as not they are talking about situations for the most part wherein the couple is already living separately. New Jersey is not a no-fault only state and
Re: (Score:2)
So a guy isn't allowed to start dating after he's already completely separated and moved out? That makes even less sense. Proof of adultery should be required BEFORE the separation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem, in my mind, would arise when a PI, though authorized to make alterations to the car, does so on private property not owned by the suspicious spouse. For instance, a spouse might go to see their extramarital lover on park
Re: (Score:2)
So low tech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, distrust in a relationship is more often a sign of what you're willing to do than what they are.
You can reach a point where you trusted them just fine, and then you find out one way or another that they betrayed that trust and are cheating on you.
At that point, what then? They've ALREADY betrayed you, and haven't told you the truth. The relationship is already unhinged. Putting a GPS tracker on the car isn't about trust, its simply evidence gathering for the inevitable court proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
The use of a GPS device to track your whereabouts is not an invasion of privacy in New Jersey, a state appellate court panel ruled today.
No, that is not what the panel ruled. The panel ruled that someone with at least partial ownership of a vehicle may install, or cause to be installed, a GPS tracking device even if said person is not the primary user of said vehicle.
This ruling is very narrow and does not address placing a GPS tracking device in a car one does not own.
Title of articles is inflammatory (Score:2)
The titles of both the /. post and the original article imply it's okay to track your spouse, as if you own them and can follow them around, which is not true without their consent. The summary clarifies this as does the original article body. #1 vehicles are in public places and #2 the person who hired the investigator owns or partially owns the car.
Essentially you are asking a private investigator to put a GPS tag on your private property. Also, if the car needs to be tagged, they want to make sure the
I watched The Sopranos (Score:4, Funny)
GPS wouldn't be there very long. From what I've seen New Jersey residents are used to looking under their cars before they start them.
Heard a private investigator say once (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're at the point of hiring me to follow your spouse, your marriage is already over.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Now if they were putting the tracker into shoes/clothing/wallet/purse, that would be a violation because they are tracking the person, not the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if they were putting the tracker into shoes/clothing/wallet/purse, that would be a violation because they are tracking the person, not the car.
No...they would be tracking the shoes/clothing/wallet/purse. How is that any different?
Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. But if putting a GPS in a car (an item of personal property) isn't tracking a person, how is putting a GPS in shoes/clothing/wallet/purse (more personal property) any different?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming, regardless of their personal position on privacy, they simply don't want to find themselves in the middle of domestic disputes like divorce proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
The system they were trying to sell you was for theft recovery. If a car is stolen it is normally reported to the police. The system you apparently wanted was the 'BMW Vigilante Assist Program.'
Re:A simple solution... (Score:4, Informative)
That could be a problem.
The legality here, which the end of the summary alludes to, is that there's joint ownership involved with respect to the car. If a car is property of both parties, and spouse A puts a tracker on it (or more likely gets a PI to do it), but doesn't tell spouse B, then (s)he can't be charged under this precedent. It sucks, from a moral standpoint, that the being-spied-upon spouse doesn't have a recourse, but what's right and what's legal aren't always the same thing.
A GPS jammer OTOH could be illegal by simple dint of disrupting the GPS systems of people not involved in this marital spat. This is an annoyance if the person being disrupted is merely using their GPS to get to the grocery store; it could be a much bigger problem if they're on their way to the hospital. I'm not sure as to the legality of jammers by jurisdiction, but it would surprise me if there aren't laws or precedent in place, for more or less this reason.
A better solution would be a detector; sweep the car for bugs.
Re:A simple solution... (Score:5, Informative)
we GPS jammers are illegal as to jam you need to broadcast on the same frequency with would require a licence that the FCC isn't going to give to anyone outside of the Military or NASA.
a detector more than likely wouldn't work as most of theses trackers are placed and they listen and then store data local and then are retrieved physically by the person who put it there.. if it isn't broadcasting it would be very difficult to detect remotely considering the current makeup of a modern car.
Re:A simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary and article weren't specific about what type of tracker it was; it may have stored data locally or broadcast it. If you're storing data on the bug itself for later physical retrieval, then if the person driving the bugged car finds it, they can destroy it and the data, whereas remote monitoring ensures they only destroy the bug. And if it's just broadcasting a cellular signal, you could probably find it.
Now, part of me wonders if a smart bug might only broadcast occasionally, say by sending the last 24 hours of data once a day, to avoid being detected. That could be a bitch to find... (And if it's occurred to me, it's occurred to people smarter than me, so I'll bet that kind of bug exists).
Of course, for either a jammer of detector to matter to the discussion, you'd need to first believe that you were being tracked. TFA mentions this bug was in the glove compartment, so if the person had searched their car, they'd have found and disposed of it, or maybe had some fun screwing around with it first.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not up on GPS technology, but many radio receivers use a "heterodyne" system in which they generate an internal radio signal which they use to filter out the incoming radio signal. If GPS receivers do this, they could be tracked at short range from their internal signal, even if they're not deliberately transmitting anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Very low power broadcasts don't require a license. For example the fm transmitters that plug into ipods.
Re:A simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, you are only keeping tabs on your own property. This reminds me of a colleague of mine that worked at a phone company, woman called in and was completely furious because they've given the records for HER phone to her husband. Except it wasn't her phone, it was registered in the name of the company and the company was in his name. He requested a detailed bill and the phone company simply complied. It doesn't matter that she was the one using it, that they called it hers because legally it was not - not that she was very willing to listen to that. Same when your spouse is using the car, it's not hers as the ownership is just as joined as ever. Sure a little creepy but it only applies to things you have joint or sole ownership in, that rather limits the uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that nobody is using this technology for that purpose. If you're that concerned with the vehicle being stolen you get it lojacked, that way every police car in the country is tracking where it is and they seem to have a really high success rate.
This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order. If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qu
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.
I'm no lawyer, but doesn't having proof of adultery usually have an effect on alimony? Maybe he already spoke to a divorce lawyer and this is the result.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This reminds me of a colleague of mine that worked at a phone company, woman called in
What are the spousal privacy laws like there in India? :/
I track my ex-wife and my lawyer is fine with it (Score:5, Interesting)
I use a cellphone which I gave to our child during a divorce. The carrier tracking service by Verizon notifies me anytime they entered of left designated zones. I know when she leaves the city, the state, visits her boyfriend, and when she lies about her whereabouts. But I'm not actually tracking her. I am tracking my young toddler child. She had disappeared for weeks with our child which started the divorce process. A lawyer was able to force her back.
Since then I bought my child a cellphone which is kept in the diaper bag for what I've called "emergencies" since she can't afford a cellphone. It is locked to only call myself or my parents and to only take incoming calls from the same. It cannot text. But it does have GPS which I pay $10 extra a month for with real time updates anytime I want. I usually don't look just because I don't want the battery to go dead because she doesn't charge it, and it could be gone for a week at a time.
If the cell tower changes it checks GPS. If GPS crosses a zone then I get an email alert with a map picture of the location and a logged date and time. I don't hide the phone, but have given it out openly. I haven't told her it is running GPS, but the phone is for my child, not her. I have even made clear that if she leaves our child somwhere and goes elsewhere, then the phone is to stay with whoever is watching our child, not her.
I won't let her go running off with my child in the middle of the night again. Too many parents lose their children to a parental abduction and never see them again for 20 years. She might ditch the cellphone and run. But I will know when and where my child was when it was last moved. Is this legal? My lawyer says that I have nothing to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I first thought when I began reading the article, but later we find that "Appellate Judge Joseph Lisa, Jack Sabatino and Carmen Alvarez said [the plaintiff] had no right to expect privacy because the GPS tracked his movements on public streets."
If this is truly the basis of the decision, then ownership of the vehicle seems irrelevant. By that argument, I could put a GPS t
Re: (Score:2)
It's because your car clearly isn't your personal property.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
..is to use a GPS jammer.
I read that "a GPS hammer"
Re:A simple solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps a simpler solution would be to refrain from cheating on your spouse...
Re:A simple solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even simpler....don't get married!!
Seriously, if you don't get married...and you want to upgrade to a 'newer model'...you don't risk losing half your worldly possessions, and splitting is as simple as "goodbye".
Keeps life much simpler....
Re: (Score:3)
Also, don't share property, don't share finances, don't provide for the other person in any way, and above all, don't have kids. Yeah, sounds much better,
Re:A simple solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
I sense here you were attempting to be sarcastic...but honestly, I don't see anything wrong with what you said...or that that is bad.
I mean, if you actually want to have kids..sure ok, then you need the marriage thing...in general. But if you don't want them...then there is no reason to marry. I'm independent, any woman I'm with...needs to be somewhat independent too, and definitely be fiscally sound on HER OWN. I'm not out there to take someone along for the ride...if they don't carry their own weight financially in the relationship, then you as a guy are basically paying for pussy, and there's a better descriptive word for that.
But really...what good does it do to share property with someone? Share finances (unless you are earning at least nearly equal)? If they're earning too...there is no need to 'provide'.
And for me...I've never had an inclination to have kids...too much of a boat anchor for my preferred lifestyle. I don't want to sacrifice a large chunk of my life and development, nor do I want the financial burden, I particularly like having a great deal of disposable income to travel with and buy things that make me happy. I like to meet and enjoy various women, and if I got tied down...that could get messy.
It all depends on what you want out of life...it is short so make sure you do what you want to make it the most enjoyable you can.
But what you described isn't negative....if you don't want kids.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a very self-centered view. Not evil, but just thinking about yourself.
Some of us like the knowledge that there is someone permanent around who is willing to help. Someone to talk to. Someone who gives a shit. You can't buy that last two. You can buy a helper, you can buy sex, but you can only buy people who pretend to care about you or about what you say. If they are in it for the money, they don't care about you. Rather, they only care about your money.
And, some of us are willing to act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you say that... There has been quite the discussion on the subject of de facto unions here in Quebec, which apparently will lead to common-law unions having similar protections to married unions - food pensions, school pensions, etc. This is all part of the Eric v. Lola alimony case.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's another step too...don't keep a chick around TOO long. Living together, well...if you go that route...make sure you know the laws of your state...some (in the US) do have that time limit where they consider
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's not that simple.
Let's say the financial contributions of the partnership are 70%-30%. If you're the 30% partner, marriage is great, because if you divorce you pick up a significant chunk of your ex's income. Even if you're the 70% partner, it might be a good idea economically if the savings on insurance and the like save you more than that same chunk of income.
And of course, there's another piece of this as well: Just because you're married doesn't mean you and your spouse can't agree to allo
Re:A simple failure... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You can still easily and readily use the old analog version...the street map. Just stop at a service station or the like and pick up a local one.
"You navigate...I'll drive...."
--Spicolli
Re:You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if you are cheating on your spouse then I am not sure that they are the only one with moral or ethical problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that person is going to be hell to live with (whether they can legally track you or not) and you're probably better off without them. Why should we let people who have mental disorders limit what the rest of us can legally do? Someone with a mental disorder can buy a baseball bat and beat you over the head with it until you're dead. Does that mean baseball bats should
Re:You know what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Awful ruling, but I'd have less problem with my spouse tracking me than the police doing it. And I could divorce my spouse, while I can't do that with the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it an awful ruling? If you own the vehicle you have the right to put a tracking device on it. I'm failing to see what is so awful about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It is like that. And it's perfectly fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Bathroom for your 12yr old daughter?
Re:You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
marriage is a union of two people that legally binds them as one person
Well, it binds them as a legal entity and the level of binding can vary widely from state to state. Just look at a credit card application - it will say things about residents states X-Z need to include information about spouses while other states do not. In some states you can enter into lots of business/credit arrangements without a spouse even needing to know about it and other states require the spouse's signature, never mind just notification.
Re: (Score:2)
Ownership does not (or should not) trump privacy.
Yes, it does. Your privacy means jack squat if you are using my car which I can track all I want.
It's like installing bugs or cameras in your house to monitor your family without their knowledge.
So it's like another perfectly legal action?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He put a GPS on his own car. There is no privacy involved.
Re: (Score:2)
...glad I'm not in your family.
people have rights. or, are you some little dictator/king of your household?
oh right, you already admitted as such. you spy on your own family.
disgusting! you creep!
Re: (Score:2)
The line may be much more grey and blurry with your family than it is with perfect strangers, but it certainly exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter whether you're paying the bill or not, those things are typically communal property in most states. And at any rate, just because you're a jackass that's one step from domestic violence doesn't mean that it's the status quo to track and spy on ones family.
The only reason why anybody ever engages in that behavior is to control the family members. It's somewhat legitimate when it comes to kids, but when it comes to ones spouse there is completely no justification possible. It's one of the first
Re: (Score:2)
"perfectly fine" to log what people do on your computer?
do you tell them, before they borrow it, that you INTEND to spy on their every move?
you, like many others who think that spying on friends/family/etc is A-OK, are also a creep!
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you have no right to privacy from me when you are using my property.
I'm not sure that the courts would agree with you for all possible interpretations of that statement. I don't have links handy, and I'm too lazy to look them up at the moment, but I there have been plenty of legal cases where pervs owning houses/apartments/stores put video cameras in bathrooms or dressing rooms, and -- even though that was, in fact, their property -- the courts ruled that there was indeed both an expectation of and a right to privacy in those settings which trumped the ownership rights.
Re: (Score:2)
So there are "plenty of cases" yet you can't even cite a single one? Methinks someone is engaging in hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
(hint: Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't make it not so. When it's something that can be trivially discovered in 10 seconds or less, the onus is on you to not be an ass.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, you seem to be conflating things. Putting tracking devices in cars or putting cameras in your own home is not the same as installing cameras in the toilet to watch strangers peeing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what the specifics are of NJ, but typically property purchased during marriage belong to both parties, meaning that it wouldn't be your car, it would be your and your spouse's car.
Also, in many states you could go to prison for that sort of behavior, whether you own the equipment or not, you don't have the right to violated wiretap laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not the motive, the motive is spying on the spouse. If you want to make sure that your property isn't stolen, you can get the car lojacked. But this is purely a matter of stalking your spouse for nefarious purposes. There is not situation under which it is OK to track a partner without their full knowledge and consent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's awful because someone didn't read the summary, but hey, when was reading the summary a requirement for posting here?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Marriage is not supposed to be an adversarial arrangement.... I mean... maybe if you are into that, but I am not.
However, if your spouse is that jealous and non-trusting, one would think you would have found this out before you got married. People don't usually just suddenly decide that they are jealous and don't trust you at all, either you gave them some reason...or they were batshit crazy and insecure to begin with.
This is why I stick to open relationships, I would never put up with this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
My ex started out just mildly paranoid, angry, jealous and destructive and some years later with the death of her mother and birth of our son around the same time, she just started ramping up the bat shit crazy side of her personality.
In other words, all the warning signs were there; you just chose to ignore them. FWIW, I've been there and done that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess.... I still think its a crazy thing to get all bent out of shape about. In most relationships, one spouse or another will cheat at some point, why make a fucking huge deal over something that happens in most relationships? It really doesn't have to be that big of a deal and is hardly worth installing GPS devices over..... that fits my definition of fucking crazy.
Then again, I guess I see that others see it as a big deal, if you are so wrapped up in the myth of monogamy then sure I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just don't try to sell it on ebay. That usually doesn't end well, particularly if it was installed by an officer. Best to "lose" it on a bumpy road. Maybe under the tires once or twice for good measure.
Tho I still don't get it why something left on/in your property is not considered abandoned and become your property?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I'm ever married to someone who doesn't have any moral or ethical problems with putting a GPS tracker on my vehicle just to get dirt on me, and they want a divorce .. they can have it with my blessings
Most of these people aren't necessarily unethical to begin with but they change over time to view it as acceptable. Bearing, rearing and caring for children changes parents.
Another thing to keep in mind is that if children are involved the legally required child support and alimony can be crippling to the one who doesn't keep the kids... so parents "fight" for the kids, not just on emotional grounds, but on practical financial basis... divorces can really suck, even if there is no wrongdoing from either pa
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, if you own his car.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you partially own his car.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you own or have partial ownership of the judge's car? The person in this case owned the vehicle and thus it is perfectly legal for them to install a GPS tracking device on it. Did you have anything to add other than some stupid strawman?
Re: (Score:2)
If your credit is shitty enough, the bank will put in a lowjack.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are the owners of the car, yes it is okay for them to do so. I hate to break it to you but personal property rights allow people to put tracking devices on what they own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No the gist of it is that he owns his car and is free to do what he wants with it.