Domestic Violence and Placing a GPS Device in New Jersey

What Qualifies as Domestic Violence in New Jersey

Under New Jersey law, domestic violence is defined as the occurrence of certain acts inflicted upon a person by someone who is close to that person, such as a spouse, former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, or other members of your household. The acts that constitute domestic violence include, but are not limited to: homicide, assault, criminal restraint, sexual assault, harassment, and stalking. For a full list, see N.J.S.A 2C:25-19. This article focuses on stalking as it relates to domestic violence under New Jersey law.

Most people are familiar with stalking as being one person following or watching another person, but with modern technology, stalking can take on a more high-tech form. The utilization of GPS tracking devices for purposes of finding out the whereabouts of a former spouse are a relatively recent occurrence, and one that the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division ruled on in the case of L.A.V.H v. R.J.V.H. in 2011.

GPS Tracking Devices and Stalking - L.A.V.H v. R.J.V.H. (2011)

The case involves a couple that divorced in July 2009. At that time Plaintiff (the former wife) obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Defendant (the former husband), based on the plaintiff’s statements that the Defendant had somehow known “everything about everything she was doing at all times.” In October 2009 the parties entered into a consent order that imposed civil restraints, including the restraint that Defendant would not stalk, follow, or threaten to harm, stalk, or follow Plaintiff. At that time Plaintiff dismissed her TRO.

Around the time of the divorce the Plaintiff began a relationship with Matthew DiLeo. On May 21, 2010 DiLeo was driving his car when he hit a pothole and heard something fall off his vehicle. When he stopped to investigate, he “saw a black box bouncing in the road” and opened it and discovered that it was a GPS tracking device. Shortly after, he discovered a second device attached to the bottom of his car. He filed a complaint with local law enforcement. Plaintiff filed another TRO upon learning of the GPS devices found on DiLeo’s car, stating that she felt threatened by Defendant and believed that he had violated their consent order because Defendant used her boyfriend to “stalk and harass” her. She detailed a prior history of domestic violence with Defendant, including that he had put a GPS device on the car that she drove.

The Defendant engaged the services of a private investigator in January or February 2010. Defendant stated that he was hired to determine whether Mr. DiLeo was living in his former home with Plaintiff, because if he were that would have been a violation for the parties Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) and Defendant would stand to benefit financially from that violation. The Investigator was not allowed to testify to the services he performed for Defendant, but he did recall telling Defendant that he was familiar with GPS tracking devices.

The court found that Defendant’s actions met the definition of “stalking” under New Jersey law N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10, but did not meet the definition of “harassment” under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, because he did not intent for the plaintiff to find out. The court entered a Final Restraining Order (FRO).

If you have need help with a domestic violence situation, call the Law Offices of Peter Van Aulen at (201) 845-7400 for a free consultation.

SOURCES

L.A.V.H. v. R.J.V.H., No. A-6292-09T4 (N.J. Super. 2011).
New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991

Reviews
★★★★★
Peter has integrity, and values his relationships with his clients beyond his financial relationship with them. For me to say this about any lawyer is really saying something. He is compassionate, straightforward and knowledgeable. I would easily recommend him to anybody.
★★★★★
Peter Van Aulen handled my case with great diligence and integrity. He is also a compassionate individual who realizes what a difficult time divorce can be emotionally. Peter works hard and doesn't take any shortcuts in preparing for a case… I highly recommend Mr. Van Aulen and his staff.
★★★★★
Peter is an exceptionally great attorney. He handled my child custody case and was able to ease any of my concerns with honest answers. He always took the time to explain the pros/cons and was always available to answer any questions that I had… I would highly recommend this attorney to anyone who is looking for one.
★★★★★
Peter Van Aulen is a very compassionate, honest and straightforward person. He was there for me at my lowest point with a genuine concern not only for my situation, but for me and my child's well being above all… He is fair and he is strong and when push comes to shove he is there for you.
★★★★★
Our cousin used Peter's law office to help with a sticky custody situation. He was extremely responsive, very nice and most importantly did an awesome job with the court! He is awesome.

*Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances