Invasion of Privacy Lawyer in New Brunswick, NJ

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

Secretly recording a nude or sexually active person, or passing such a recording to others, is a third-degree crime under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9, punishable by 3 to 5 years in state prison; a disclosure count can also bring a fine as high as $30,000. Watching without a camera, or filming a person in underwear, is graded one step lower: fourth degree, worth up to 18 months.

Because every version is a crime rather than a disorderly persons offense, the complaint does not stay in the local municipal court. A case that starts with Woodbridge, Edison or Piscataway police goes to the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) for screening and, if it survives, is indicted and tried at the county courthouse on Paterson Street in New Brunswick. We defend these cases from our Edison office; my own trial work spans more than 15 years. Invasion of privacy is not a registrable offense, but the evidence lives on phones and cloud accounts, and the early decisions about those devices often shape the result.

What Each Subsection Prohibits

Section 2C:14-9 describes three separate acts. Each requires that the accused knew he or she had no license or privilege to do it, and each requires that the person depicted did not consent.

Looking: subsection (a). Observing someone somewhere a reasonable person would assume no one could see, at a moment when the person might be undressed or engaged in sexual contact or penetration. No device is needed.

Capturing: subsection (b). Photographing, filming, videotaping or otherwise reproducing the image of a person in that same private setting. Under (b)(1), the image shows exposed intimate parts or sexual activity. Under (b)(2), the intimate parts are covered by undergarments, the conduct the press calls “upskirting.”

Sharing: subsection (c). Disclosing a (b)-type image, one “taken in violation of subsection b.,” without the consent of the person it shows. Selling, sending and posting all count, for profit or not.

Terms that decide cases. N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1 lists the “intimate parts”: genitals and the genital and anal areas, the inner thigh and groin, the buttocks and the breasts. Whether a place is private is judged objectively, from the location and circumstances. And consent is not a single yes or no: agreeing to be photographed is a different question from agreeing that the photograph may be shown to anyone else.

The consensual-image question. As written, (c) covers only images captured in violation of (b). A photo that a partner willingly took or sent, later forwarded without permission, may fall outside it on a literal reading. The Legislature has considered bills to remove that limitation; one passed the Assembly in 2024 and died in the Senate, and as of this update the phrase is still in the statute.

Degrees and Sentencing Exposure

Subsection (h) keeps a recording conviction and a disclosure conviction from merging, so a prosecutor who alleges that one person both made and spread a video can seek a sentence on each.

Consequences That Apply, and Several That Do Not

• Prison presumption. Every grade is third or fourth degree, so a person with no prior record is presumed not to be sent to prison under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(e).
• No Megan’s Law, no PSL, no Avenel. Section 2C:14-9 is absent from the registration list in 2C:7-2(b), from the Parole Supervision for Life statute and from the 2C:47-1 evaluation list. It is not a No Early Release Act offense.
• The exception: a minor in the image. When the person recorded is under 18, prosecutors may add a charge under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b), and several of those subsections are registrable. Our page on child sexual abuse material charges covers that statute.
• Limitations period. The general five-year limit for crimes applies.
• Expungement. Section 2C:52-2(b), the permanent bar list, does not mention 2C:14-9, so a conviction can be cleared after the waiting period; see our Middlesex County expungement page.
• Protective orders. Nicole’s Law orders reach only Megan’s Law offenses, so they do not apply here. The Victim’s Assistance and Survivor Protection Act (VASPA) covers nonconsensual sexual contact, penetration, lewdness, stalking and cyber-harassment, so a VASPA application becomes possible when stalking or cyber-harassment is alleged on the same facts. The sex offense restraining orders page compares the two.
• Immigration. Whether this conviction counts as a crime involving moral turpitude is unsettled in any source we can cite, and the answer may vary by subsection. A non-citizen needs an immigration lawyer to review the plea wording first.

Charges Filed Alongside Invasion of Privacy

Sexual extortion, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9.1. Added in 2023, this section makes it a third-degree crime to threaten a person, for example with release of a recording, in order to force sexual contact, exposure or the production of intimate images. Aggravated sexual extortion, aimed at someone under 18 or an adult with a developmental disability, is second degree. Neither form is registrable.

Deceptive audio or visual media, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17.8. Enacted by P.L.2025, c.40 on April 2, 2025, this is a separate section, not part of 2C:14-9. Creating, disclosing or using a realistic fabricated image or recording to commit or further a crime is third degree, and a third-degree conviction must run consecutively to the underlying offense. Knowingly or recklessly disclosing a deepfake that was unlawfully created is fourth degree. Because 2C:14-9 is built around genuine images of a real person, an AI-generated nude is more likely to fall under the newer law, though whether a fabrication with no other crime attached is chargeable at all remains unsettled.

Harassment and cyber-harassment. When images or threats are sent to embarrass or frighten someone, prosecutors and complaining witnesses often add cyber-harassment or petty disorderly harassment counts. Those charges can also support restraining-order applications.

From Complaint to Courtroom in Middlesex County

The typical file opens with a discovery: a tenant in a shared house spots a small lens in a bathroom vent, or a former partner hears from a friend that a private video is circulating in a group chat. Among college students sharing an apartment or residence-hall suite, the trigger is often one roommate finding files on another’s laptop. If the accused attends Rutgers, a student conduct case can proceed in parallel, and anything said to the university may reach the prosecutor, so we plan both tracks together.

Local police take the first report. Sex-related complaints can be referred to the MCPO Special Victims Unit, whose remit includes sex offenses involving adults; if anyone pictured may be a minor, the MCPO’s Internet Crimes Against Children detectives become involved. The proof is almost entirely digital. Detectives apply for search warrants covering the phone, any hidden device, cloud backups and messaging or social media accounts, then run forensic extractions that show when each file was created, on which device, and where it was sent. A detective may also have the complaining witness message the suspect to draw out an admission. The limits on warrantless searches are covered in our phone and digital privacy guide.

Section 2C:14-9 is not on the Attorney General’s mandatory complaint-warrant list in Directive 2016-6, so a summons is common. A person already on release in another matter may instead be jailed in North Brunswick until a first appearance. Either way, release conditions usually bar contact with the complaining witness and may restrict social media use. Unless it is resolved earlier, the case is presented to a New Brunswick grand jury.

Pretrial Intervention for a First Offense

Few sex-related charges are better suited to diversion. With no presumption of imprisonment attached, a first offender may apply for PTI in Middlesex County without first obtaining prosecutor consent. The deadline is the first case disposition conference after arraignment, filed with the county Criminal Division. The prosecutor will weigh the complaining witness’s views, how many images exist, and above all whether anything was shared. A file that never left one device makes a far stronger application than a video that was posted.

How We Challenge the State’s Proof

• The location was not private. Both (a) and (b) depend on a setting where being seen was not reasonably expected. A yard visible from the street is not a locked bathroom.
• The image was consensual. Consent to recording defeats (b); consent to sharing defeats (c). Old messages often show what the two people agreed.
• The image falls outside (c). If it was made with permission, we test whether the disclosure count can stand on the statute’s text.
• Nothing intimate is shown. The listed body areas, uncovered or in underwear, must actually appear.
• Someone else held the device. Shared tablets, family cloud accounts and synced phones make attribution a serious issue, and metadata can point to another user.
• Notice was given. Subsection (d) offers an affirmative defense for someone who posted or gave advance notice and had a lawful purpose, as with a marked security camera.
• The warrant went too far. A warrant that let police comb an entire phone or account with no limits can be attacked through a motion to suppress.

Speak With a Middlesex County Invasion of Privacy Lawyer

Keep your devices as they are and avoid any contact with the complaining witness. Phone our Edison office at (732) 659-9600 for a free, confidential review, or contact us online.