A New Jersey man who was sent to jail for watching porn in his car argued his right to “privacy” — but was shot down by a judge, new court documents reveal.

David Lomanto, 53, of Little Egg Harbor Township was watching steamy videos on his iPad — with his windows down near a restaurant — on April 22, 2014, when a woman parked next to him was “shocked” and “mortified” by the sight, according to the Tuesday court finding.

The lady, whose 12-year-old son was inside the fast food joint, “heard moaning” and saw footage of a “woman with blond hair” performing oral sex on a man, according to the Superior Court of New Jersey docs. She told a friend, who then called the cops.

When a police officer showed up nearly two hours later, Lomanto was still watching sex videos — this time of an “Asian girl” — in the same spot, according to the court docs.

“What’s the problem?” he allegedly asked the cop, after she confronted him.

Lomanto then refused to get out of his car or show his I.D., and search later revealed he had been watching porn with the restaurant’s WiFi for four hours, according to the court papers

Lomanto was later convicted of fourth-degree public communication of obscenity, obstructing a criminal investigation and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to five days in jail and two years of probation.

But in his conviction appeal, he argued that his car is a “private” space, that the obscenity law is “unconstitutionally vague” and “violated his Fourth Amendment rights.”

But Superior Court Judge Garry Rothstadt shot him down — noting that a restaurant parking lot at dinner time isn’t private enough.

“We reject the defendant’s argument that somehow his public communication of obscene material was protected because he was viewing it in the privacy of his car, even though the car was parked in the restaurant’s parking lot with its windows lowered, and the restaurant was being frequented by patrons at dinner time,” Rothstadt wrote in the finding. “While our courts have repeatedly acknowledged an individual’s privacy interest in the contents of their automobile, we have never extended the zone of privacy to what occurs inside a car that is in plain view.”