Proposed New Jersey Legislation Seeks to Protect Privacy Interests in Motor Vehicle’s “Black Box” Data


In past investigations into automobile collisions, drivers often faced little challenge to their claims that they adhered to speed limits but somehow lost control of the car, that they applied their brakes but could not slow down in time, or that they steered to avoid animals who invariably left no footprints as they scampered away leaving twisted metal and carnage in their wake. In the absence of full scale accident reconstruction investigations, such assertions could not be scientifically proven or dispelled, and accident causation was often left to a battle of credibility between biased and fallible “eye-witnesses.” Times have changed. Few drivers realize that today, even when they are alone in their vehicles, they travel with an ever-present eyewitness to their driving – the car itself.

With the advent of airbag safety systems in the 1970s, auto manufacturers seeking to understand and improve the effectiveness and utility of this new safety technology began to analyze data from embedded computer systems that capture vital information about automobile functioning and driver activity related to airbag deployment. The offspring of “flight data recorders” or “black boxes” in the airline industry, automobile event data recorders (“EDRs”) monitor and record various data points related to the operation and function of the vehicle prior to and at the time of any crash. This data includes information related to speed, acceleration, braking, lights, turn signals, and seatbelts and has now become a critical – and sometimes definitive - tool in accident investigations.

With the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration now requiring this technology in almost all newly-manufactured vehicles, legislation recently introduced in New Jersey would protect the vehicle owner’s privacy in the data contained within these devices unless compelled by a warrant in criminal investigations or by court order in civil cases. This legislation would also make it illegal for anyone, including a driver or owner, to destroy or alter the data in the aftermath of an accident. Although New Jersey’s appellate courts have not yet ruled on the scientific reliability of these devices, data from EDRs is increasingly used in litigation and prosecutions arising out of automobile collisions. Therefore, this proposed bill takes steps to begin to control when and how the information can be obtained.


An EDR records in a continuous loop of up to twenty-second intervals (depending on the manufacturer), recording over itself until it encounters a “deployment event” or “near deployment event” significant enough to “awaken” the air bag device. When such an event occurs, the EDR freezes and stores the information leading up to any collision significant enough to trigger the airbag or alert the recorder to store the data.

The data stored by the EDR is fairly easily retrieved through use of a computer software program or crash data retrieval system (“CDR”), which downloads the information. Prior to 2000, the CDR software programs were proprietary to the manufacturer, but many of the retrieval programs are now publicly available, allowing anyone, including police and private experts, to extract the information. The EDR data is then analyzed and compared to the physical evidence related to the triggering event for accuracy.


The growing desire to utilize EDR information in accident reconstruction immediately prompted questions regarding who owns the data stored in an EDR and, in turn, how the data may be obtained and for what purpose. The prevailing view, however, including that of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), places propriety rights in the hands of the vehicle’s owner. The next question then becomes whether the owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data and, if so, how that privacy interest can be protected from those seeking to obtain that information.

The only reported New Jersey decision on the subject of event data recorders, State v. Shabazz, 400 N.J. Super. 203 (Law. Div. 2005), recognized a privacy interest in EDR data. The Shabazz court upheld the extraction of that information by law enforcement pursuant to a search warrant and permitted its use against a defendant automobile owner/driver in a vehicular homicide trial. Given that New Jersey’s Constitution demands exigent circumstances to conduct warrantless automobile searches, the prevailing practice among law enforcement in this State has been to seek warrants to extract the data. The pending legislation would mandate this practice, leaving no room for doubt that the data belongs to the vehicle’s owner and that the police may not access this information in the absence of a warrant based on probable cause to believe that criminal activity has occurred. Similarly, the new bill would authorize civil litigants to pursue such information through court order only, giving the vehicle owner notice and the opportunity to challenge the request in appropriate circumstances.


Although the proposed legislation clarifies basic issues related to ownership and access, experienced litigators understand that the admissibility of EDR data in litigation presents many challenges and its admissibility at trial is never a foregone conclusion. While EDR evidence has been held reliable by courts in other jurisdictions, complex admissibility questions have not yet been decided by New Jersey’s highest courts. Experienced litigators understand the complex and critical challenges that arise in seeking to admit or exclude EDR evidence in criminal and civil trials arising out of automobile collisions. Even if a court finds EDR technology to be generally reliable, the specific device and data sought to be used in each individual case must also be scientifically sound in order to be used as evidence in a criminal or civil trial.

The power and impact of EDR evidence upon a jury cannot be overstated. This data may prove incredibly useful or conversely devastatingly harmful to a driver accused of wrong doing or an individual harmed as a result of a traffic collision. Jurors often defer to scientific evidence, viewing it as somehow infallible and superior to other evidence. Thus EDR evidence can be an invaluable asset or devastating threat in accident-related litigation. Choosing an attorney and experts who understand EDR technology and the law related to its admissibility can make all the difference.


The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services.  Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the time of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.  The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.

This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk.  We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability.  Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein.  We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.

We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.

If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at  One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.

Thank you for your interest in Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A.’s legal blogs. You will receive an email sent to the address entered in order to confirm your subscription. Please watch for it and click the link to confirm your subscription.