Collecting electronic evidence: Is it Legal and/or Admissible?

Before the advent of the internet, finding proof of infidelity often fell to the hands of the private investigator and a telephoto camera lens. Yet, with today’s technology, from spyware to GPS trackers, spouses can play private investigator themselves. Software such as Spector Pro and E-Blaster, that captures chats, instant messages, emails, websites, keystrokes, and screen shots and are either saved to the computer or sent to a remote location, can be easily installed on home computers. GPS trackers, costing between $100 and $400, can provide incriminating information on a spouse’s whereabouts. Evidence obtained through these methods, such as graphic emails confirming an extramarital affair or a log of a spouse’s visits to a new lover’s home, can make or break a fault divorce. Additionally, the evidence may be useful for other matters in a divorce, as Jason Brown of the Minnesota Divorce & Family Law Blog points out. Attorney Brown highlights on his blog that information about who your spouse is exposing your children to can be extremely valuable in assisting the court in determining the best interests of your children. Child support and alimony cases can also benefit from information about your spouse's employment and work patterns.

But is the evidence that you collect admissible in court? And even more importantly, is gathering information in this manner legal?

 

New Hampshire is one of 15 states to pass anti-spyware legislation. RSA 359-H criminalizes knowingly causing a computer program or spyware to be copied onto the computer, on which the person is not an authorized user, and using the program or spyware to collect personal information “through intentionally deceptive means, such as through the use of a keystroke logging function, and transferring that information from the computer to another person.” However, the statute does not provide for a blanket exclusionary rule with regard to whether this intercepted information may be used as evidence at a civil trial. Whether the evidence comes in is left to the discretion of the court.

Other states have upheld a trial court’s ruling to exclude the evidence. In Florida, a wife, using the Spector program, secretly installed the spyware on her husband’s computer and was able to capture entire conversations the husband had had with another woman. The husband discovered the program, and asked the court to prevent the wife from using the evidence. The trial court ruled, and the appellate court agreed, that although the state and federal wiretapping statute did not have an exclusionary rule, the court had the discretion to exclude the evidence because it was obtained illegally.

Whether the evidence will come before the court comes down to the facts surrounding how the evidence was obtained. Was the spyware installed before or after the separation? Was the spyware on a family computer that both spouses used or had access to? Arguably, evidence obtained from spyware installed by an “authorized user” onto a family computer prior to a separation would be admissible. However, installing spyware onto a spouse’s workplace computer would probably produce evidence that would be excluded because it was obtained illegally.

GPS trackers on the other hand are not covered by a specific law such as the wiretapping or spyware statutes. However, some law enforcement agencies have taken the position that placing a GPS tracker on a spouse or ex-spouse’s vehicle is stalking and have brought criminal charges against the tracker installer. The Nashua Police recently charged Kevin Merritt with misdemeanor stalking after he installed a GPS tracker on his estranged wife’s vehicle and used the information to follow her to various locations. Whether the police would prosecute and the court would allow the information to be used as evidence would come down to the specific facts of the case, including how the information gleaned from the tracker is used and who owns the vehicle.

In the end, the muddy waters of electronic information gathering require the advice of an experienced attorney to help navigate the specifics of your situation. Contact Crusco Law Office, PLLC to schedule an appointment to discuss your New Hampshire case.  

           

Appeal in the New Hampshire homeschooling case: Kurowski & Voydatch

Back in September 2009, the so-called New Hampshire homeschooling case (In the Matter of Martin Kurowski and Brenda Voydatch) grabbed national headlines when the court ordered the parties’ child to attend public school instead of continuing with home schooling. Home school supporters decried the decision, arguing that the order trampled the mother’s constitutional rights to raise and educate her child as she saw fit. The problem with that line of thinking is that it fails to acknowledge that the child has two parents, not one. As an equal decision maker, the father has rights too. When the parents could not agree on matters of education and religion, the family court decided.

The case is currently on appeal at the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and headed to oral arguments on January 6, 2011 at 9:00 am. The parties have submitted their briefs, including an Amicus Curiae brief from the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).  

The mother, through her attorney John Simmons, filed an appeal and brief with the New Hampshire Supreme Court, asking the court to consider the following questions:

 

  • Whether the trial court erred in modifying a parenting plan, to order a home schooled child to attend public school, by considering the “best interests of the child”, where none of the statutory circumstances permitting modification, as set forth in RSA 461-A:11, were present, and the court made such finding.
  •  Whether the trial court erroneously concluded that it was in the best interests of a home-schooled child to be sent to public school where the court’s decision was based on its own definition of the purpose of education that was unsupported by RSA 461-A:6,I or by any other law.
  •  Whether the trial court’s decision should be reversed because it committed plain error in relying on the opinion testimony of a guardian ad litem who was not qualified as an expert and who’s opinion was not based on a rational perception within the meaning of Rule 701 of the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence.
  • Whether the trial court’s order that a home schooled child attend public school to expose her to diverse points of view was erroneous because it violated the fundamental parental right to control a child’s education guaranteed by the United States Constitution, where the evidence showed that the child was already getting a superior education and the State’s purported goal could be achieved by a less restrictive means.
  •  Whether the trial court’s order that a home schooled child attend public school because she was too rigid in her religious beliefs was erroneous because it interfered with the child’s right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Whether the trial court’s order that a home schooled child attend public school should be reversed because it relief on the testimony of a guardian ad litem who was biased against the religion practiced by the child and her mother.

The father, through his attorney Joshua Gordon, submitted a reply brief. HSLDA submitted an amicus curiae brief. Stay tuned for a blog post reviewing the arguments and briefs.

NH Bar's Lawline: Free Legal Advice

Have a legal question that you need answered? Volunteer attorneys are available to answer your legal questions through LawLine, the New Hampshire Bar's free telephone legal advice service. LawLine is held on the SECOND Wednesday of each month from 6:00 p.m. ~ 8:00 p.m. To reach LawLine, call the NH Bar Association (toll free) at 800-868-1212.

Upcoming LawLine Dates:  
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010