When a person secretly records another person's intimate areas, the conduct is not a joke, a misunderstanding, or a harmless prank. It is an invasion of privacy: and when the accused holds a position of authority, the betrayal of trust makes the alleged conduct even more disturbing.

That is why the allegations involving Rutgers research dean Joshua Kohut deserve serious attention. But serious attention cuts both ways: alleged victims deserve protection and accountability, while an accused person remains presumed innocent and entitled to a defense that tests every part of the State's case.

According to Law Commentary's August 28, 2026 report, Kohut, 51, of Cranbury, New Jersey, was arrested August 25 and charged by complaint with fourth-degree invasion of privacy. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and the state Division of Criminal Justice allege that Kohut used a mobile phone to secretly record another person's undergarment-clad intimate areas while working at Rutgers.

Investigators reportedly executed a search warrant on August 24 and seized electronic devices. A preliminary forensic examination of one device allegedly uncovered the videos.

Authorities have not identified the person shown in the recordings. They also have not publicly stated whether that person was a student, employee, or another individual associated with Rutgers; how many videos were found; when they were recorded; or whether more than one person was recorded.

Rutgers placed Kohut on administrative leave and barred him from campus. He was released on pretrial monitoring and is scheduled to return to court October 8 for a pre-indictment conference. If convicted of the New Jersey charge, he faces up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

Those are serious allegations. They are not yet proven facts.

The real issue is the betrayal of trust

A university dean has access, status, and influence. Students and employees may reasonably believe that a dean, professor, or administrator will respect professional boundaries and personal privacy.

Secretly recording someone's undergarment-clad intimate areas: if proven: is a profound violation of that trust. The person holding the phone is not simply capturing an image. That person is taking control over someone else's privacy without permission.

The alleged conduct also raises difficult institutional questions:

• Was the person recorded in a workplace or educational setting?
• Did the accused use his position to gain access to the person or the location?
• Were other people recorded?
• Were the images stored, copied, transmitted, or posted?
• Did the university respond promptly after learning of the allegations?

Indiana law does not create a special voyeurism offense merely because the accused is a dean, professor, supervisor, or other authority figure. The statutory elements still have to be proven. But a position of authority can make the alleged betrayal more severe from a human, employment, institutional, and sentencing perspective.

What Indiana law says about “upskirt” recordings

Indiana's primary voyeurism statute is Indiana Code § 35-45-4-5. The statute addresses voyeurism and public voyeurism, including the secret recording of a person's private area.

For this statute, a “private area” generally includes the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, or buttocks.

Public voyeurism generally requires proof that a person:

1. Acted without the other person's consent;
2. Acted with the intent to peep at the person's private area; and
3. Peeped at that private area and recorded an image with a camera.

Public voyeurism is generally a Class A misdemeanor. That can mean up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000 under Indiana's general sentencing provisions.

The charge can become a Level 6 felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under the voyeurism statute or if the person publishes, posts, makes the image available on the internet, transmits it, or disseminates it to another person.

That distinction matters. A secret recording may be a criminal offense even if the accused never posted it online. But dissemination can significantly increase the stakes.

Indiana law may also treat recording in a private location differently. Secretly recording someone in a place where the person reasonably expects to disrobe: such as a restroom, shower, bath, or dressing room: can implicate other portions of the voyeurism statute and may carry more serious consequences when a camera is used.

The exact charge depends on the location, the conduct captured, the recording device, the alleged intent, whether the image was shared, and the accused person's criminal history.

When Indiana's intimate-image law may apply

Indiana also criminalizes the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images under Indiana Code § 35-45-4-8.

That statute generally applies when a person knows or reasonably should know that the person depicted did not consent to distribution, but distributes the intimate image anyway. Distribution can include sending the image to another person, posting it online, or transferring it through a website, application, telecommunications device, or other medium.

However, not every secret recording automatically qualifies as an “intimate image” under this separate statute. The statutory definition focuses on images depicting sexual intercourse, other sexual conduct, or exhibition of uncovered buttocks, genitals, or a female breast. An undergarment-clad recording may clearly support a voyeurism charge while raising a different analysis under the intimate-image distribution statute.

That is why prosecutors, defense attorneys, and courts must examine the actual image, not merely rely on labels or headlines.

If a recording was distributed and meets the statutory definition, the person who shared it may face an additional criminal charge. A prior unrelated conviction under the intimate-image statute can elevate the offense to a Level 6 felony.

Victims may have a separate civil case

Criminal prosecution is not the only legal remedy. Indiana's civil statutes, IC 34-21.5-3-1 through IC 34-21.5-3-3, provide a potential civil cause of action for the nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images.

A qualifying victim may be able to pursue:

• Actual economic and noneconomic damages;
• Emotional-distress damages;
• Statutory damages of up to $10,000 per defendant;
• Any financial gain obtained through the disclosure;
• Punitive damages;
• Attorney fees and court costs; and
• Injunctive relief to stop continued distribution.

Under IC 34-21.5-3-2, civil damages may be available even when the victim cannot prove a separate economic loss. A criminal conviction is not required to bring the civil claim.

But again, the statutory definitions matter. A victim and attorney must determine whether the image meets the legal definition of an intimate image, whether the defendant disclosed it, whether the disclosure was without consent, and whether the required intent or knowledge can be established.

Search warrants and digital evidence will be central

In a case involving alleged secret videos, the phone or other electronic device may become the most important evidence in the prosecution.

But “the police found videos on a phone” is not the end of the legal analysis. It is the beginning.

Investigators generally need probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The warrant should identify what officers are looking for and where they are authorized to search. The scope of a digital search matters because a phone can contain an enormous amount of private information unrelated to the alleged offense.

A defense attorney may examine:

• Whether the affidavit established probable cause;
• Whether the warrant was sufficiently particular;
• Whether investigators exceeded the warrant's scope;
• Whether the device actually belonged to the accused;
• Who had access to the device or account;
• How the phone was seized, preserved, and analyzed;
• Whether forensic software altered or misread data;
• Whether timestamps and metadata are reliable;
• Whether the files were created, downloaded, received, or automatically synchronized;
• Whether the images show the alleged victim's private area as defined by statute; and
• Whether the State can prove intent to “peep” beyond mere possession or accidental capture.

Chain of custody is also critical. The State must be able to explain who handled the device, how it was transported, how forensic images were created, what tools were used, and whether the evidence presented in court accurately reflects what was originally found.

If a warrant was unconstitutional or investigators obtained evidence unlawfully, the defense may seek suppression. If the forensic examination is unreliable, incomplete, or incapable of establishing who created or possessed a file, that weakness must be exposed.

The State still has to prove every element

I believe in aggressive advocacy for people whose privacy has been violated. Secretly recording intimate areas is serious conduct, and victims should not be ignored or forced to handle the situation alone.

But I also believe in the Constitution. An accusation is not a conviction. A search warrant is not automatically valid. A video file does not automatically prove who created it, who possessed it, when it was made, or what the accused intended.

The State must prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes consent, intent, the nature of the image, the identity of the person involved, the identity of the person who made the recording, and: if prosecutors seek a felony enhancement: publication, transmission, dissemination, or a qualifying prior conviction.

At the Law Office of Mark Nicholson, I prepare cases thoroughly and fight aggressively. My firm represents people facing serious criminal allegations, and we also help clients understand their rights when privacy has been violated. I have been recognized as a Top Attorney and Best Pro in Town because I do not treat a cases like a paperwork exercise.

If you believe you were recorded or your private image was distributed, preserve evidence, avoid forwarding the material, and seek legal guidance immediately.

Visit the Law Office of Mark Nicholson or learn more about Mark Nicholson's criminal defense representation. Consultations are available 24/7.

This article provides general legal information about Indiana law and is not legal advice for any specific case. Indiana statutes and court interpretations can change. Anyone facing an investigation or charge should speak directly with an Indiana attorney.