HELD: As a long-standing feature of New Jersey law, telephone billing records are entitled to protection from government access under the State Constitution.
CDW OFFICE 2016 HOME AND STUDENT TRIAL
The Attorney General, who superseded the Monmouth County Prosecutor s Office to litigate the constitutional question raised by the trial court s decision, sought leave to appeal, which the Appellate Division denied. 338 (1982), a communications data warrant (CDW), which is the equivalent of a search warrant, is needed to obtain telephone billing records. The subpoena sought customer and billing records, as well as call-detail records, which identify the phone numbers of all incoming and outgoing calls as well as the date, time, and duration of those calls (collectively telephone billing records or telephone toll records ).ĭefendant filed a motion to quash, which the trial court granted, stating that, under State v. As part of its continuing investigation, the Monmouth County Grand Jury issued a subpoena duces tecum to a wireless telephone service provider requesting subscriber information associated with defendant s cell phone number, which was the contact for the controlled drug buys that led to defendant s arrest. The police arrested defendant Gary Lunsford after they executed a search warrant at his home based on suspected criminal activity involving transactions in controlled dangerous substances (CDS). In this appeal, the Court addresses the standard that should apply when the State seeks telephone billing records in connection with a criminal investigation. RABNER, C.J., writing for a majority of the Court. Gary Lunsford (075691) (A-61-14)Īrgued FebruDecided AugCorrected (Dissent) August 3, 2016 Please note that, in the interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.) It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader.
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It also involves a degree of intrusion that a reasonable person would not anticipate." Here, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of the motion to quash, noting that the State could apply for a court order to obtain defendant's cell phone records consistent with the Court's discussion of protected privacy interests in this opinion. It is akin to using a tracking device and can function as a substitute for 24/7 surveillance without police having to confront the limits of their resources. "Using a cell phone to determine the location of its owner can be far more revealing than acquiring toll billing, bank, or Internet subscriber records. He argued instead that a grand jury subpoena, based on a relevancy standard rather than probable cause, was sufficient to safeguard the privacy rights at stake here. On appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Attorney General did not dispute that telephone billing records were entitled to protection under the State Constitution. The Attorney General, who superseded the Monmouth County Prosecutor s Office to litigate the constitutional question raised by the trial court's decision, sought leave to appeal, which the Appellate Division denied. Defendant filed a motion to quash, which the trial court granted, stating that a communications data warrant (CDW - the equivalent of a search warrant), was needed to obtain telephone billing records.
As part of its continuing investigation, the Monmouth County Grand Jury issued a subpoena duces tecum to a wireless telephone service provider requesting subscriber information associated with defendant's cell phone number, which was the contact for the controlled drug buys that led to defendant's arrest.
0 kommentar(er)
