What: Reports of home computer wiretapping surface in tempestuous New Jersey divorce case.

When: Superior Court of New Jersey ruled June 8.

Outcome: Wife succeeds in raising her share of the settlement in a divorce case.

What happened, according to court documents:

Peter Garfinkel, 41, asked for a divorce from his wife of six years, Lori Garfinkel, 38, in March 2001. They had separated earlier that month, and Lori remained in the marital home with three children under 3 years old.

After her husband started court proceedings for a divorce, Lori Garfinkel filed a counterclaim alleging the following: transmission of sexual disease, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wiretapping.

The wiretapping charges are what make this unfortunate case relevant to Police Blotter. During the trial in state court, the judge dismissed Lori's claims related to sexual disease and emotional distress. But Peter admitted to "wiretapping" Lori's computer.

The description is general: Peter used an unspecified monitoring device to track his wife's computer transactions and record her e-mails. Lori was granted $7,500 on the wiretapping claim.

Overall, though, the trial judge did not find her credible and ruled that she misrepresented her income, assets and expenses. Lori appealed.

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of New Jersey appeared to side with her. The judges reduced the amount granted to Peter and handed the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings.

This is hardly the first time computer monitoring claims have surfaced in marital spats. As previously reported by CNET News.com, a Florida court ruled last year that a wife who installed spyware on her husband's computer to secretly record evidence of an extramarital affair violated state law.

In addition, makers of key loggers (hardware or software methods of recording keystrokes) are actively marketing their products as ways to expose spousal wrongdoing. KeyGhost's Web site mentions "multimillion-dollar divorce settlements," and the description of BlazingTools Sofware's Perfect Keylogger includes this line: "Are you wondering if your mate is planning a divorce?"

web page

This report is concerning...particularly:

"a Florida court ruled last year that a wife who installed spyware on her husband's computer to secretly record evidence of an extramarital affair violated state law."

Hi, intention!

How can we change the law to recognize marital rights...not personal...yours or mine...but the ours that is the marriage?

Who do we elect or influence?

And how the heckfire are you?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

LA

Hiya LA!

That is a great question. The recent defeat of the marriage amendment in congress does not bode well. Apparently the general consensus is that the "issue" is way down the list of priorities. Until it becomes a platform issue for politicians, I don't forsee much change.

On a personal note - I am doing really well. Thanks for asking. Just really busy with work, life, family. Recovery is a good thing.

Just a thought....

The evidence gathered through means like voice recording, key-loggers and such is as a rule not admissible in court. With no-fault divorce law then proving infidelity really does not have much impact on the divorce. However... it is commonly accepted that infidelity can influence custody decisions.

Personally I would be willing to pay a $7500 fine for wiretapping if that was to increase my chances of prime custody of children. I guess the people who evaluate custody issues take a lighter view on a wiretapper rather than a spouse who has a torrid affair.

Having said that then I do not see that the above marriage was affected by infidelity.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4500-03.pdf

Gosh, I've wondered about this one myself. Often times evidence obtained by a police without warrant is inadmisssible in court. So I've wondered if evidence could be considered inadmissable if a wife or husband spied on the other.

I agree with the poster above. In the case of marriage the person's idividual rigths shouldn't outweigh the rights of the family and of a faithful spouse, especially where a spouse may be able to obtain such information and learn of STD's or mismanagement of family funds or any other destructive behavior by the infidel.

This case is interesting. I wonder what would be the case if the computer was a family PC but purchased by one of the spouses.

See now this is where I don't get it. If you don't spy, you don't get the proof, yet you can't use the proof because you if you don't spy...... What do those kooky people think? That a WS and OP are stupid enough to hand over the proof? Sometimes? But in most cases it takes a resourceful BS to get proof.

Just gotta wonder if the mothership has her implants in the judicial system. BIG BOOBIES! LOL!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

L.

Bump! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

While this is an extreme application...I think we need to be careful about assuming we have the legal right to pry into our spouses private lives using illegal means...wiretapping.

Transparency is a gift from one spouse to another. Not a given. I have no problem with spouses recording conversations and computer records to obtain what they need for their own peace of mind.

But introducing them in court as evidence is a whole different matter.

I am currently separated from my wife. We are still legally married. Do you think she has the right to pry into my private affairs now? Do I have the right to pry into hers?

I think it is situationally dependant.

I live in a no fault state. Courts could care less if FWW had an A. Irreconcilable differences.

The A could be used in child custody if the children were concretely negatively affected by the A. The example they gave is if OP came to house and started screaming or embarassing the kids. The A cuased this and this caused the kids embarassment.

In a fault state an A is one of the grounds for divorce. So you would need proof.

A smart person would gather the information through any means necessary and only bring to court the information that was obtained in a way that cannot be used against them.

For instance if I saw an email about a meeting I would go to the meeting place and take pictures. I would use the pictures not the email. If I saw an email about a meeting at a hotel and then saw a hotel charge I would use the hotel charge etc.

In my state it is a misdemeanor to record a conversation without the other persons knowledge. Most of the time it is not enforced.

If you are looking for admissable evidence you may not need any but if you do just use the right evidence.

This is not a criminal proceeding so they are not going to say you can't use the photo's because you found out about them by monotoring your FWS emails. Unless of course you tell them thats how you knew.

QED <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I just spoke with my attorney's office and they told me that going into someone else's e-mail inbox is illegal. they said that person has an expected right to privacy.

i don't agree with it but that's what i was told.

Yes it is all illegal. The recordings, the spyware, the recorders etc.

Misdemeanors that carry a fine and possibly imprisonment. Rarely does this happen.

I say again use whatever means necessary and only use the ones that are above board.

Now if your FWS had left their email account logged in say and when you went to check your email you came across this you did nothing wrong. It is up to them to log themselves off.

My FWW both have gmail accts. when I go to gmail sometimes she forgets to log off and hers pops up without asking for the password. Nothing I can do about that right!

I'm trying to find out if i can use that same rationalization. my wife uses our home computer to check her work e-mail. can i say that i was looking at the history and clicked on the link for an e-mail she viewed and it took my right into the e-mail? too shady or believable?

Not for them to decide. Is it possible is the question? Work email sometimes is secure. Once you leave you are automatically logged off.

Try it next time and see if it really works. If it is possible then it is beleivable. You can even say you hit the back button and it took you there if it is possible.

If they walk in and say well what he is saying is a lie because they are on a secure server and when you hit the back button the page sayd page expired please enter your password you become the shady person.

The courts do not like being lied to so tread lightly. Also check with your lawyer because different rules apply to different places.

BS Lawyer: Your Honor, my client found evidence that would render her family homeless.

Judge: Is that true Mrs. WS?

BS: Yes Your Honor.

Judge: Please explain.

BS: I walked into my bedroom, where the computer is stored and an e-mail was on the screen addressed to an e-mail addressed named 'OW' and it outlines how our family will be forced into a divorce, $$ taken from family will be used to support the A and then the family will be kicked out of their home and rendered homeless. Here is a copy of that e-mail that was in the printer.

Judge: You realize this is not admissable evidence.

BS: Oh, ok. I have a question.

Judge: Yes?

BS: What does one do with information designed to harm one's family?

Judge: Hm......

Doable? Maaaayyyybe! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Fictional fun reading at best. LOL!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

L.