When I was a young lawyer, few people heard of drones, if they even existed. Similarly, remote access to computers was only a burgeoning concept and done via dial up modems. Who knew that one day, the could be considered tools of domestic violence.
But alas, times change and the law must adapt to the technology of the day, very often, too slowly. Eventually, the law usually catches up to the technology.
The use of drones to spy on a spouse as well as the remote accessing of her laptop were ultimately the basis for the entry of a Final Restraining Order which was affirmed by the Appellate Division in the case of S.H.H. v. M.A.D., an unreported (non-precedential) decision released on January 29, 2026.
In this case, in 2022, the wife got a TRO against her husband of 34 years which was resolved with a consent order for civil restraints in a pending divorce action giving the wife exclusive possession of the marital home, prohibited the husband from entering the home or property and prevented him from having any contact with the wife.
Approximately 10 months later, while doing yardwork, the wife saw a drone near the corner of her house. She believed that the husband was piloting the drone because search history on the joint Amazon account showed a search for a drone. Wife reported this to the police, and while doing so, reported that she believed that she saw the drone on two prior occasions. She also reported that she believed that the drone hit a window in the home on another occasion.
Wife also discovered a file on her laptop connected to the network in the marital home called “wife in backyard which had 22 pictures and a video of her from the she called the police about the drone sighting.
The wife obtained a TRO as a result of the above.
At the trial, the wife testified that the husband, a network engineer, had access to the home network between the time of the civil restraints order and the TRO. She testified that the lights would go on and off, her thermostat would go up and down, there were logins to her Facebook and bank accounts. In addition, her profile name on a streaming service was changed multiple times. Further, she testified that after the TRO was served, her laptop was remotely locked by the administrator. When she tried accessing it again, she got a message that it was locked by law enforcement.
Wife and a computer expert previously ordered by the court in the divorce case testified. The expert confirmed that the husband had remote access to the computer and that digital light switches, cameras, a smart thermostat, and smart outlets could be accessed from outside of the home. He also testified that the drone video and photos were on a One Drive account and that the file originated from another device, not the wife’s laptop. He further testified that the laptop was set up with a remote desktop protocol allowing it to be controlled remotely.
The expert concluded that husband had remotely accessed the laptop with a username and password that was the husband’s.
When the husband testified, he denied remotely accessing the computer or any devices in the home but admitted to flying the drone over the house on one occasion. However, on cross examination, he admitted to remotely locking the laptop so no one else could use it.
The trial court, finding the wife and expert credible and the husband not credible, entered a Final Restraining Order (FRO). The court found that all of the evidence supported a finding of stalking as well as harassment. The Appellate Division affirmed.
The takeaway here is that the improper use of drones, remote access to a computer after you have been put out of the house, accessing another party’s accounts, nanny cams, hidden recording devices, airtags, etc. – all more modern technology, can be fraught with the risk of having a domestic violence restraining order entered against the perpetrator. Even with the warning, some people never learn.
[View source.]
