On March 18, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in State v. Ates, held that evidence obtained as a result of a wiretap order issued on the defendant’s cellphone and monitored in New Jersey, which recorded out-of-state conversations with persons having no contact with New Jersey, was admissible in a prosecution for a murder that occurred in New Jersey.
Denial of the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress incriminating conversations between him and his wife, both Florida residents; the defendant’s mother, a Louisiana resident; and the defendant’s sister, a Florida and Louisiana resident, was affirmed by Judge Fisher, P.J.A.D. The judge rejected the defendant’s argument that New Jersey’s wiretap statute was unconstitutionally “extraterritorial.” In a unanimous decision affirming Judge Fisher’s decision of first impression, Chief Justice Rabner pointed out that New Jersey’s statute “provides that a wiretap order may be executed at any point of interception” within New Jersey, which includes “the site where the officer is located at the time the interception is made—commonly referred to as the listening post.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
