Can You Get a Domestic Violence Protective Order Against an Ex Who Is Spying on You?

When a marriage ends, people brace for the hard conversations. How will custody work with the kids? How will the money be divided? Who gets what pet? And what life might look like next.

What people don’t always prepare for is the feeling of being watched, of realizing an ex somehow knows things they have never been told.

An estimated 7.5 million people are victims of cyberstalking each year in the United States, and about 80% of those people are tracked by some form of technology.

In Moorhead v. Moorhead, the North Carolina Court of Appeals looked at whether a former spouse’s use of surveillance-related information could support a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against him.

Background of Moorhead v. Moorhead

Kimberly and Tim Moorhead separated and eventually divorced. Tim allegedly accessed security cameras inside the former marital home, placed a tracking device on her vehicle, hired a private investigator, and sent messages confronting her using information he obtained.

So, Kimberly sought a DVPO, sharing with the court incidents that made her feel scared and upset. She said Tim had told her about a gynecology appointment, travel plans, activity at her house, and a dinner date she went on.

Tim didn’t deny obtaining information about what she was doing, insisting that he actually had valid reasons for the tracker, camera access, and private investigator he used to watch her.

The trial court entered a DVPO. They also ordered Tim to surrender his guns, ammunition, and permits after finding he had threatened suicide (from both Kimberly’s statements and his own admission).

What the Court of Appeals Said

The issue was not whether the tracker, cameras, or investigator could have some legitimate purpose in some other situation, but rather how Tim used the information he got.

North Carolina law allows a DVPO if a person causes another person to live in fear of continued harassment that causes substantial emotional distress. Harassment consists of communications that torment or frighten a person and that have no legitimate purpose.

The Court of Appeals found there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Kimberly testified that she felt unsafe, panicked, victimized, and scared of communications revealing knowledge of her whereabouts and private activities.

The court also approved the ruling on suicide threats. Kimberly testified that Tim had made three threats toward the end of their marriage. Tim said in his court filings that he might have said similar things, but he didn’t recall because alcohol was involved. That evidence supported the conclusion.

Why This Case Is Important

Moorhead demonstrates that courts may look beyond how the information was obtained to the effect of the resulting conduct. A camera, a tracking device, a PI, none of those things, by themselves, automatically win or lose a case. But messages or confrontations that cause fear and emotional distress – that conduct can be sufficient to support a protective order.

This is an unpublished opinion, so it is not controlling authority in later North Carolina cases. But still, it’s a good example of how courts look at alleged harassment in DVPO cases.

We Want to Help

If you’re facing a similar situation, or if you have questions about protective orders or any other family law matter that arises after a separation, our team at Woodruff Family Law Group is here to help you determine what you can do.

Reach out today and we’ll help you figure out what’s next for you and your family.