Technology and Domestic Violence

As technology advances, so must the concepts of what acts may constitute domestic violence.  As the case summarized below indicates, the surreptitious use of video cameras, tracking devices, and similar devices may qualify as an act of domestic violence. This can be true even if the victim finds out about the surveillance after the fact.

 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE : COVERT SURVEILLANCE

The judge found the very placement of hidden surveillance equipment was designed to check plaintiff’s movements and created a climate of fear and anxiety for plaintiff, which constituted harassment. Further, the judge rejected defendant’s testimony as not credible. Defendant’s assertion he used cameras to monitor their mother’s physical health could not justify the secret placement of units in and around his sister’s living space or the number of units installed.

 

P.M. v. A.D.M., Jr., New Jersey App. Div., May 9, 2017

About Sandy Durst

Sandy Durst, Esq., is the founding partner of The Durst Firm where he heads the Family Law Department. Individuals facing a divorce benefit from the combination of legal skill, common sense and compassion that Sandy brings to each and every matter. Each case is given the personalized attention it deserves.

This entry was posted in Durst Firm News. Bookmark the permalink.