Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cnty. Prosecutor's Office
184 A.3d 126
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2018Background
- "Operation Jersey Boyz" (2004) led to multiple wiretap orders, raids, arrests, and seizure of $264,428 from Frank P. Lagano; wiretap records were sealed after suppression rulings in related criminal proceedings.
- Lagano was later murdered (2007); his Estate pursued civil claims and a federal suit alleging state-created danger and conversion tied to disclosure of informant status and seizure of funds.
- The Estate sought unsealing of the sealed wiretap applications, intercepted communications, and derivative evidence for use in the federal civil suit and the state forfeiture action; the Law Division granted much of the request in Dec. 2016.
- The State appealed, arguing New Jersey’s Wiretap Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-17(c)) and federal Title III prevent disclosure to private litigants and that suppressed evidence should remain barred.
- The Appellate Division upheld that §17(c) permits disclosure in civil litigation upon a showing of good cause, affirmed the trial court’s general finding of good cause, but vacated/disallowed disclosure that would reveal informant roles without further specific analysis and ordered a broader protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-17(c) permits disclosure of intercepted communications and derivative evidence to a private litigant for civil litigation | Estate: §17(c) allows disclosure "upon a showing of good cause" to any court of competent jurisdiction, including for civil cases | State: §17(c) should be read as limited to criminal matters; disclosure to private litigants is not authorized | Held: §17(c) authorizes disclosure in civil proceedings upon showing of good cause; Spinelli's contrary holding disapproved |
| Whether federal Title III (§2517) limits or controls disclosure under NJ law | Estate: State wiretap material here is governed by §17(c); Title III does not control state-ordered wiretaps in this context | State: §2517(3) and federal precedents counsel limiting disclosure to criminal proceedings or government witnesses | Held: §17(c) is a distinct state provision (modeled partly on Blakey's draft) and may be applied independently; federal §2517 does not bar disclosure under §17(c) |
| Whether suppressed wiretap evidence (as illegally intercepted) may nonetheless be disclosed for civil discovery | Estate: Suppression should not preclude disclosure when good cause shown; disclosure levels the playing field where State is a party and has access | State: Suppression under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-21 bars use/disclosure | Held: Suppression does not automatically prohibit disclosure for civil discovery where court finds good cause; careful balancing required |
| Standard for disclosure of information revealing confidential informants; scope of protective order | Estate: Needs materials to litigate forfeiture and federal claims; seeks disclosure to counsel/parties | State: Disclosure risks safety, ongoing investigations, privacy, and informant exposure; seeks tighter restrictions | Held: Court must assess whether disclosure would reveal that a person was an informant for a particular agency, investigation, period, or manner and balance the risk; remanded to apply this specific analysis and to craft broader protective order limiting access (attorneys' eyes only) and providing ex parte notice opportunity to informants/third parties before further revelation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Braeunig, 122 N.J. Super. 319 (App. Div. 1973) (recognizing discovery of intercepted communications upon "good cause" and "interests of justice")
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (informer's identity disclosure requires balancing informant safety against defendant's need)
- State v. Milligan, 71 N.J. 373 (1976) (standard for disclosure of informant identity)
- Nat'l Broad. Co. v. United States Dep't of Justice, 735 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1984) (federal cases limiting private pretrial access to wiretap materials under Title III)
- In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 216 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2000) (balancing disclosure against privacy interests in wiretap material)
- State v. Munafo, 222 N.J. 480 (2015) (standard of statutory interpretation; deference to plain language and legislative intent)