Do I need a lawyer? What type do I need? Personal Pictures/Privacy Violation?

Question

So, I've got this psycho ex who has some pictures of me in, shall we say... compromising situations. These pictures were taken by myself and stored on my own personal computer with password protection. Unbeknownst to me said ex got access to the photos and now that we are not on kind terms has begun sending the photos to various people including my current partner, parents and possibly my employer. I need to know what laws pertain in this situation (Indiana) and what type of lawyer might possibly handle this type of situation? Or can I just contact local law enforcement and have them deal with it? Will they deal with it? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. (and thanks in advance)

and let me say, my intent isn't to sue... my intent is to make the situation stop and remove the pictures from my ex's possession

Answer 1

Oh, you poor, poor thing. How awful for you! Yes, you should immediately relay this information to police, who will investigate and probably charge perp. Perp is the one who will need a lawyer. You will become the prosecution's key witness at a criminal trial. This is a serious offense listed in the Indiana Criminal Code under harassment/stalking:

IC 35-45-10-2
"Harassment" defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities pursuant to labor disputes.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-3
"Impermissible contact" defined
Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, "impermissible contact" includes but is not limited to knowingly or intentionally following or pursuing the victim.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

Indiana Stalking Law
IC 35-45-10-1. "Stalk" Defined. 1993.

Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "stalk" means a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened. The term does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity.

§ 35-45-2-2. Harassment. 1976. Amended 1996.

(a) A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication:

(1) makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues;

(2) communicates with a person by telegraph, mail, or other form of written communication;

(3) transmits an obscene message, or indecent or profane words, on a Citizens Radio Service channel; or

(4) uses a computer network (as defined in IC 35-43-2-3(a)) or other form of electronic communication to:

(A) communicate with a person; or

(B) transmit an obscene message or indecent or profane words to a person;

commits harassment, a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) A message is obscene if:

(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the dominant theme of the message, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex;

(2) the message refers to sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and

(3) the message, taken as a whole, lacks serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.

IC 35-45-10-2. Harassment Defined. 1993.

Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, HARASSMENT means conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities pursuant to labor disputes.

IC 35-45-10-3. Impermissible Contact Defined. 1993.

Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, IMPERMISSIBLE CONTACT includes but is not limited to knowingly or intentionally following or pursuing the victim.

IC 35-45-10-4. Victim Defined. 1993.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, VICTIM means a person who is the object of stalking.

§ 35-45-10-5. Violation. Penalties. 2002.

(a) A person who stalks another person commits stalking, a Class D felony.

(b) The offense is a Class C felony if at least one (1) of the following applies:

(1) A person:
(A) stalks a victim; and
(B) makes an explicit or an implicit threat with the intent to place the victim in reasonable fear of:
(i) sexual battery (as defined in IC 35-42-4-8);
(ii) serious bodily injury; or
(iii) death.

(2) A protective order to prevent domestic or family violence, a no contact order, or other judicial order under any of the following statutes has been issued by the court to protect the same victim or victims from the person and the person has been given actual notice of the order:

(A) IC 31-15 and IC 34-26-5 or IC 31-1-11.5 before its repeal (dissolution of marriage and legal separation).

(B) IC 31-34, IC 31-37, or IC 31-6-4 before its repeal (delinquent children and children in need of services).

(C) IC 31-32 or IC 31-6-7 before its repeal (procedure in juvenile court).

(D) IC 34-26-5 or IC 34-26-2 and IC 34-4-5.1 before their repeal (protective order to prevent abuse).

(E) IC 34-26-6 (workplace violence restraining orders).

(3) The stalking of another person violates an order issued as a condition of pretrial release, including release on bail or personal recognizance, or pretrial diversion if the person has been given actual notice of the order.

(4) The stalking of another person violates a no contact order issued as a condition of probation if the person has been given actual notice of the order.

(5) The stalking of another person violates a protective order issued under IC 31-14-16-1 and IC 34-26-5 in a paternity action if the person has been given actual notice of the order.

(6) The stalking of another person violates an order issued in another state that is substantially similar to an order described in subdivisions (2) through (5) if the person has been given actual notice of the order.

(7) The stalking of another person violates an order that is substantially similar to an order described in subdivisions (2) through (5) and is issued by an Indian:

(A) tribe; (B) band; (C) pueblo; (D) nation; or (E) organized group or community, including an Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.); - that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their special status as Indians if the person has been given actual notice of the order.

(8) A criminal complaint of stalking that concerns an act by the person against the same victim or victims is pending in a court and the person has been given actual notice of the complaint.

(c) The offense is a Class B felony if:

(1) the act or acts were committed while the person was armed with a deadly weapon; or

(2) the person has an unrelated conviction for an offense under this section against the same victim or victims.

(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the court may enter judgment of conviction of a Class A misdemeanor and sentence accordingly if the court finds mitigating circumstances. The court may consider the mitigating circumstances in IC 35-38-1-7.1(c) in making a determination under this subsection. However, the criteria listed in IC 35-38-1-7.1(c) do not limit the matters the court may consider in making its determination.

(e) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the court may enter judgment of conviction of a Class D felony and sentence accordingly if the court finds mitigating circumstances. The court may consider the mitigating circumstances in IC 35-38-1-7.1(c) in making a determination under this subsection. However, the criteria listed in IC 35-38-1-7.1(c) do not limit the matters the court may consider in making its determination.

Note especially the advocacy groups listed at aardvarc.org bottom left: http://www.aardvarc.org/stalking/states/indst.shtml.Do reach out to them. You may find, too, that you want to talk to a lawyer, and they'll have a good list of stalking advocates to advise you. You say you don't want to sue but you may change your mind later on.

Answer 2

Yes should indeed get an attorney. Local law enforcement will NOT deal with it. He has not broken any laws, per se. However, you probably have a civil claim against him.