Jersey City Invasion of Privacy Lawyer

Reviewed by William A. Proetta, Esq. · Updated October 2026

Invasion of privacy under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 is a third-degree crime when someone records or shares an image of another person’s exposed intimate parts or sexual activity without consent, carrying 3 to 5 years in prison and, for disclosure, a fine of up to $30,000. Secretly watching, or recording a person whose intimate parts are covered only by underwear, is a fourth-degree crime with up to 18 months. None of these offenses requires Megan’s Law registration or Parole Supervision for Life, none is subject to the No Early Release Act, and a conviction can be expunged.

Every subsection is indictable, so a Jersey City or Hoboken charge is screened by the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office and prosecuted in the Criminal Division of Hudson County Superior Court at the Frank J. Guarini Justice Complex, 24 Central Avenue, not in municipal court. These cases are built on phones, cloud accounts and messages, and most are won or lost on what the State can prove about who made the image, where, and with what permission. I have defended criminal cases in Hudson County for more than 15 years. Call (201) 793-8018 for a free case review.

Invasion of Privacy Under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9

The statute has three offenses, and each has its own elements.

Observing, subsection (a). Knowing you are not licensed or privileged to do so, you observe another person without consent, in a place where a reasonable person would not expect to be observed, under circumstances where that person’s intimate parts may be exposed or the person may be engaged in sexual penetration or sexual contact. No camera is needed.

Recording, subsection (b). Under (b)(1), you photograph, film, videotape, record or otherwise reproduce the image of a person whose intimate parts are exposed, or who is engaged in sexual penetration or contact, without that person’s consent and where a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. Subsection (b)(2) covers the same conduct when the intimate parts are clad only in undergarments, the conduct usually called “upskirting.”

Disclosing, subsection (c). You disclose a photograph, film, videotape, recording or other reproduction of sexual activity, exposed intimate parts or undergarment-clad intimate parts that was “taken in violation of subsection b.,” unless the person shown consented to the disclosure. “Disclose” is broad: selling, sharing, posting or making the image available on the internet, for profit or not.

Three definitions decide most cases. “Intimate parts” under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1 means the sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock or breast. The reasonable expectation of privacy is judged by the place and circumstances, not by what the person hoped. And consent is measured separately for each act: consent to being filmed is not consent to disclosure.

Grading Under 2C:14-9

Under subsection (h), a recording conviction and a disclosure conviction do not merge, so the State can seek separate sentences when the same person is alleged to have made an image and then shared it.

Sentencing and Collateral Consequences

Prison. All four offenses are third or fourth degree, so a first offender is presumed not to go to prison under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(e).

Megan’s Law. Invasion of privacy is not on the registration list in N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(b). Registration becomes a risk only if the case also carries a charge that is registrable, such as an endangering count where the person shown was under 18. See our Megan’s Law page for that list.

Parole Supervision for Life and Avenel. Neither applies. Invasion of privacy is not a PSL offense and does not trigger the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center evaluation under N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1.

Restraining orders. A no-contact condition is standard on pretrial release. A protective order under the Victim’s Assistance and Survivor Protection Act is available for nonconsensual sexual contact, lewdness, stalking or cyber-harassment, so if the same facts are also charged as stalking or cyber-harassment, expect that application alongside the criminal case.

Statute of limitations. The general five-year limit for crimes applies.

Expungement. Invasion of privacy is not on the N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(b) bar list, so a conviction can be expunged after the statutory waiting period.

Related Charges: Sexual Extortion and Deepfakes

Two newer statutes are often charged alongside or instead of 2C:14-9. Sexual extortion, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9.1, enacted in 2023, makes it a third-degree crime to threaten a person, their property or reputation, including a threat to release a recording, to coerce sexual contact, exposure or the making of intimate images; it is second degree when the target is under 18 or an adult with a developmental disability. It is not registrable either. Deceptive audio or visual media, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17.8, enacted April 2, 2025, makes it a third-degree crime to create, disclose or use a deepfake to commit or further a crime, and fourth degree to knowingly or recklessly disclose one that was unlawfully created; a third-degree conviction must be sentenced consecutively to the underlying offense. Because 2C:14-9 is written around real images of the person, a realistic but fabricated intimate image is more likely to be charged under the deepfake statute than as invasion of privacy.

How These Cases Arise in Jersey City and Hoboken

The typical Hudson case starts with a phone. A roommate in a shared Hoboken apartment finds a device in a bathroom. Two former partners in Jersey City fall out, and one finds that an intimate video was sent to friends. A gym or a short-term rental reports a camera. A person at a bar on Washington Street notices a phone held at an angle. Jersey City or Hoboken police take the first report, and sex-related complaints are commonly coordinated with the Prosecutor’s Office Special Victims Unit.

The investigation runs on search warrants: for the phone, for cloud backups, for social media and messaging accounts. A forensic extraction shows when a file was created, on which device, and whether and to whom it was sent. Detectives may ask the complaining witness to make a recorded call or send messages to draw out an admission before an arrest. If a detective contacts you, the safer course is to say nothing about the images and call a lawyer. Our post on what to do if you are under investigation for a sex crime covers that step.

PTI for Invasion of Privacy

Invasion of privacy is one of the sex-related charges where Pretrial Intervention is realistically discussed. As a third- or fourth-degree crime it carries no presumption of imprisonment, so a first offender does not need the prosecutor’s consent just to be considered. The prosecutor will weigh the complaining witness’s position, the number of images, and whether anything was disclosed. A recording that never left the device is a different PTI application from a video that was posted.

Arrest and Pretrial Release

Invasion of privacy is not among the offenses that require, or presumptively call for, a complaint-warrant under R. 3:3-1(e) and (f), so many cases begin with a summons. A warrant can still issue in some circumstances, such as when the person is already on release for another offense. Either way, expect release conditions barring contact with the complaining witness and, where the allegation involves posting, a condition against using social media to contact or discuss that person.

Immigration

Whether a 2C:14-9 conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude has not been settled in a source we can point to, and the answer may differ between observing, recording and disclosing. A non-citizen should not plead to any subsection until an immigration lawyer has reviewed the exact language of the plea. A reduction to a non-sexual charge may be the safer outcome.

Defenses to an Invasion of Privacy Charge

• A reasonable person would have expected to be seen. Subsections (a) and (b) require a place where a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. A beach, an open window facing a street or a public area of a party is a different case from a bathroom.
• Consent. Consent to being filmed defeats (b). For (c), consent to the disclosure is the defense, and messages often show what was agreed.
• The image was not “taken in violation of subsection b.” Subsection (c), as written, reaches disclosure of an image taken in violation of subsection (b). Whether a disclosure charge can rest on an image that was recorded with consent is a question we examine closely in every disclosure case.
• No intimate parts as defined. An image that does not show the body areas listed in 2C:14-1, or shows them clothed other than in undergarments, does not fit (b)(1) or (b)(2).
• Who made or sent it. Shared devices, shared accounts and synced cloud storage make attribution a real issue. Forensic timestamps can show the defendant was not the one holding the phone.
• Notice and lawful purpose. Subsection (d) is an affirmative defense where the person posted or gave notice of the intended observation or recording and acted for a lawful purpose, as with disclosed security cameras.
• The search. A warrant that let police search an entire phone or account without limits can be challenged through a motion to suppress.

Talk to a Hudson County Invasion of Privacy Lawyer

The outcome of these cases is often set in the first weeks: what was on the device, what was sent, and whether the prosecutor sees a PTI case or an indictment. Do not delete anything, and do not contact the person who made the complaint. Call William Proetta Criminal Law at (201) 793-8018 for a free, confidential case review, or contact us online.