21 A.3d 650
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Villanova appeals from a Law Division order granting summary judgment for Innovative Investigations and Leonard and dismissing his privacy claim.
- GPS device was placed in the Denali by Mrs. Villanova, at Leonard's suggestion, to track Villanova's movements during divorce proceedings.
- Device stayed in the vehicle for about 40 days (mid-July to late August 2007) and reports were obtained via the GPS provider.
- There is no evidence the GPS captured Villanova entering a private or secluded location, nor that the information was passed to defendants.
- Plaintiff had worked in law enforcement and argued his job-related activities could create a privacy expectation, but the record showed use of the vehicle on public roadways.
- Court held summary judgment proper because no invasion of privacy occurred under New Jersey law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a GPS-tracking device constitutes invasion of privacy under NJ law | Villanova argues privacy was invaded | Defendants contend no privacy intrusion occurred | No liability; no private-location intrusion Established |
| Whether defendants can be liable for mere suggestion to install GPS | Villanova contends defendants' urging was culpable | Leonard's suggestion alone not actionable | Not actionable without actual intrusion or knowledge transfer |
| Whether the plaintiffs’ claims survive as to damages and whether summary judgment properly resolved all issues | Plaintiff asserts damages and triable issues exist | Arguments pertain to negligence; not dispositive given privacy claim disposition | Summary judgment affirmed; damages issues not decisive under privacy claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review on appeal)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1995) (NJ constitutional privacy rights)
- Burnett v. Cnty. of Bergen, 402 N.J. Super. 319 (App.Div. 2008) (privacy intrusion and reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Rumbauskas v. Cantor, 138 N.J. 173 (1994) (four privacy torts; intrusion, private facts, false light, appropriation)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (vehicle movements on public roadways; lack of privacy expectation)