State v. Hunt
450 A.2d 952, 91 N.J. 338 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The New Jersey Constitution provides a greater expectation of privacy in telephone toll billing records than the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the police must obtain a warrant or other judicial approval before acquiring such records from the telephone company.
Facts:
- Police conducted a court-authorized wiretap on the telephone of Robert A. Notaro, who was involved in an illegal sports bookmaking operation.
- During the wiretap, police overheard at least three conversations between Notaro and Merrell Hunt related to betting.
- On December 1, 1977, police observed Notaro meeting with Hunt and Ralph Pirillo, Sr. in Atlantic City to discuss gambling business.
- A reliable informant told police that Pirillo was a bookmaker with whom the informant had previously placed bets.
- On September 18, 1978, a different informant advised Detective M. Robert Warner that Hunt was conducting a daily gambling business over two specific telephone numbers listed in Hunt's name.
- Without a warrant or court order, Detective Warner went to the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company and obtained Hunt's home toll billing records for those two numbers for a two-month period.
- The records revealed that frequent calls had been made from Hunt's telephones to a 'Sports Phone Service,' which furnishes up-to-the-minute data on sporting events.
- Detective Warner later listened in on two phone calls where an informant placed bets with Hunt.
Procedural Posture:
- Merrell Hunt and Ralph Pirillo, Sr. were indicted in a New Jersey trial court for bookmaking, conspiracy, and related offenses.
- The defendants filed motions to suppress evidence, including the telephone billing records, alleging unlawful searches and seizures.
- The trial court denied the motions to suppress.
- Following the denial, the defendants entered into a plea bargain and pled guilty to conspiracy and bookmaking.
- The defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their suppression motions to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division summarily affirmed the convictions.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court, the state's highest court, granted the defendants' joint petition for certification to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless seizure of an individual's telephone toll billing records by police violate the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Schreiber, J.
Yes. The warrantless seizure of an individual's telephone toll billing records violates the New Jersey Constitution because an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in such records under the state constitution. While the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted in Smith v. Maryland, does not protect information voluntarily turned over to a third party like a telephone company, the New Jersey Constitution can be interpreted to provide greater protection. The court reasons that New Jersey has a long-standing public policy of providing the utmost protection for telephonic communications, viewing the telephone as an essential part of the modern home. A telephone customer is entitled to assume that the numbers they dial will be used solely for the telephone company's business purposes and not released to the government without legal process, as such records can reveal the most intimate details of a person's life. However, the court gives this new rule prospective application only, and finds that even if the seizure was improper here, the other legally obtained evidence was sufficient to justify the subsequent warrants, making any error harmless.
Concurring - Pashman, J.
Yes. While concurring with the majority's result, this opinion is written to emphasize the dangers of political abuse posed by unrestrained government access to telephone records, citing historical examples of the FBI obtaining records of journalists. This opinion also argues for a different standard for state constitutional interpretation, proposing a presumption in favor of independent analysis rather than requiring special reasons to diverge from federal precedent. The author asserts that robust, independent state constitutionalism strengthens fundamental liberties, fosters a healthy diversity of constitutional analysis, and is appropriate because state courts are not constrained by the same federalism concerns that limit the U.S. Supreme Court.
Concurring - Handler, J.
Yes. This opinion concurs with the result but seeks to establish a structured analytical framework for determining when it is appropriate to interpret the New Jersey Constitution as providing greater protection than its federal counterpart. The author cautions against an uncritical, ad hoc reliance on the state constitution and proposes a set of non-exhaustive criteria to guide the analysis, including differences in textual language, legislative history, pre-existing state law, structural differences between constitutions, matters of particular state interest, state traditions, and public attitudes. Applying this framework, the author concludes that New Jersey's long history and strong tradition of protecting the privacy of telephonic communications justifies the court's decision to depart from federal law in this case.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in New Jersey's 'new judicial federalism,' establishing that the state constitution can be a source of individual rights independent of and greater than those granted by the U.S. Constitution. By rejecting the federal third-party doctrine for telephone records, the court created a significant protection for privacy against technological intrusion in New Jersey. The competing judicial philosophies laid out in the concurring opinions by Justices Pashman and Handler established the competing frameworks—an activist presumption versus a criteria-based approach—that would shape the debate over independent state constitutional interpretation in New Jersey jurisprudence for decades to come.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Hunt