NJ Court Reverses PTI Admission for Privacy Invasion Case

State of New Jersey v. D.A.G.

Docket No. A-1639-23

Decided August 27, 2024

Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided the State’s appeal from an order admitting defendant D.A.G. into the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) over the prosecutor’s objection.

The facts derived from this case are as follows: In August 2022, R.G. rented a home in Lavallette for a week with her family, including her sister C.S., their young adult daughters and defendant, who was R.G.’s long-term boyfriend. On August 30, 2022, a day or two after arriving at the house, C.S.’s daughter discovered what appeared to be a cell phone charger plugged into an outlet in the bathroom that was shared by the occupants of the house. After inspecting the device, C.S.’s daughter realized the device had a camera lens and a slot containing a memory card. The device was also positioned facing a mirror. R.G. then called the police, who responded to the house. An officer retained the device in evidence. In February 2023, after obtaining a search warrant, the officer conducted a forensic examination of the memory card.

A forensic analysis of the memory card revealed thirty-nine video clips. Two of the videos depict the defendant in his home plugging in and then removing the device, moving the device to another outlet and “manipulating it.” Multiple additional videos showed the defendant manipulating the device in different locations of the home. Ten videos showed R.G. or C.S. using the bathroom or taking a shower, and the last video showed C.S.’s daughter discovering the device and unplugging it. Defendant was subsequently indicted on two counts of third-degree invasion of privacy and one count of fourth degree invasion of privacy.

Defendant eventually applied for PTI, which was rejected by the Ocean County PTI Director on June 20, 2023. Defendant appealed the decision to the PTI judge pursuant to Rule 3:28 after which, by letter dated July 11, 2023, the State advised defendant it joined the Director’s rejection. In its analysis of defendant’s application, the State found eleven of the seventeen nonexclusive criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e) were relevant to its decision. The State also articulated its reasons for each of the eleven factor’s applicability. The State conceded that the remaining six factors weighed in favor of admission into PTI.

Defendant also submitted a supplemental brief to the PTI judge because he received the State’s rejection letter after he filed his appeal. In the supplemental brief, defendant argued that the State’s rejection constituted a patent and gross abuse of discretion because it relied on inappropriate factors and gave undue weight to others. Oral argument was conducted on January 12, 2024. In a written decision, the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion and ordered the defendant into PTI over the objection of the prosecutor. The State appealed.

Ultimately, the Appellate Division determined that the trial judge erred in ordering defendant’s admission into the PTI program over the prosecutor’s objection. The court articulated that given the prosecutor’s concessions the inapplicable factors were neutral, defendant failed to demonstrate the decision was not based on a thorough consideration of all appropriate factors and constituted a gross and patent abuse of discretion. The court noted that the prosecutor properly emphasized the nature and circumstances of the offense and facts of the case, which involved a serious invasion of privacy against two individuals with whom defendant had a long-term familial relationship. The court also believed that the prosecutor gave appropriate weight to the victims’ requests to proceed with prosecution and took into account the needs and interests and the victims.

At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions to appeal the denial of admission into the PTI program. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.

We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.