Husband's video surveillance of wife's bedroom was "stalking" within meaning of state domestic violence act

Law Reporter, Jun 2003

H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405 (N.J. 2002).

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a wife was entitled to a restraining order against her husband under the state's domestic violence statute after he hid audio and video surveillance equipment in her bedroom during their divorce.

Here, a wife filed for divorce. The husband and wife had occupied separate bedrooms in the marital residence for some time. The wife discovered a microchip camera and microphone hidden in a picture in her bedroom. She later testified that upon rinding the equipment, she realized how her husband seemed to know details about her daily activities. She said she was "devastated" by the discovery and terrified of her husband, who had once threatened to kill her.

The wife requested a restraining order under the state's domestic violence law. At trial, she testified about her husband's previous physical and verbal abuse. The trial court held that the husband had committed both harassment and stalking in violation of the state's domestic violence act, and issued the restraining order. An appellate court reversed only as to the harassment finding.

The state high court found that surveillance by a spouse in the marital home, even without a threat of actual violence, may constitute stalking, a predicate offense to domestic violence. Stalking, the court said, is a course of conduct that is capable of causing a reasonable person to fear bodily injury or death. Here, defendant's knowledge of plaintiff's activities, which enabled him to follow her and appear in places that he otherwise could not know she would be, enhanced her feeling of helplessness and inability to escape defendant. This is the sort of behavior the anti-stalking statute was designed to prevent, especially in light of his previous threats and violent actions, the court found.

The court also held that defendant could be found to have harassed plaintiff. Here, plaintiff testified that defendant's conduct made her feel as though he knew her every move. In addition, the parties' past history-including defendant's threats of violence-indicates his purpose, motive, and intended use of information obtained through the surveillance of plaintiff's private acts and conversations in her bedroom.

Accordingly, the court found that plaintiff had established a prima facie case under the domestic violence act.

Wife's Counsel

Michele C. Verno, Linwood, NJ.