State v. DeFranco, 426 N.J. Super. 240

Superseding indictment charged DeFranco with first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child.
Defendant moved to suppress a secretly recorded telephone conversation obtained with the victim’s consent; the call was intercepted with the victim and detective Potter present.
Police used the victim’s information, including a cell phone number supplied by the school via a School Resource Officer, to obtain the number used to place the call.
SRO Tucker, assigned to the school, obtained the number from the principal’s secretary and included it in the school’s documentation; the MOA authorized his role in protecting students.
Defendant pled guilty to second-degree sexual assault in 2010, based on a factual basis involving events when the victim was thirteen; he was sentenced to five years with Megan’s Law requirements.
On appeal, DeFranco argued the suppression ruling and privacy protections under Article I, Paragraph 7 were broader than Fourth Amendment protections; the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of suppression, and the matter proceeded through appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DeFranco had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone number.	State: no protected privacy interest; number disclosed to school and police not private.	DeFranco had privacy in his number; disclosure to few does not waive it.	No reasonable expectation of privacy; or alternatively, privacy waived; court affirmed denial of suppression.
Whether disclosure of the cell phone number was properly obtained without a warrant or subpoena.	State acted within authority as SRO could access number.	Requires search warrant or subpoena; no waiver or lawful access absent court process.	No error in denying suppression; number obtainable by school personnel under MOA.
Whether the doctrine of inevitable discovery cured the lack of court process.	State could rely on inevitable discovery to avoid suppression.	Inevitable discovery does not justify unlawful acquisition.	Not necessary to decide; no reversible error given waiver and agency role.
Whether school officials unlawfully provided the number to police.	Officials acted within MOA and safety duties.	Information-sharing violated privacy expectations.	No unlawful conduct by school officials found; proper under MOA.
Whether admission of the intercepted recording amounted to reversible error given the disputed acquisition.	Recording was central to the case against DeFranco.	Illegality of obtaining number taints the recording.	Harmful error not shown; recording properly admitted under circumstances.

State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386 (N.J. 2008) (privacy in IP addresses; informational privacy discussed; not adopted here)
State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338 (N.J. 1982) (telephone-number privacy and privacy interests)
State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182 (N.J. 1990) (privacy in garbage held in closed container)
State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17 (N.J. 2005) (privacy in bank records)
State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285 (N.J. 2006) (need for subpoena for utility records)
State v. Maristany, 133 N.J. 299 (N.J. 1993) (police access via MOA; role of SRO in gathering information)
State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210 (N.J. 1983) (police investigative procedures and privacy)
Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., 129 N.J. 81 (N.J. 1992) (privacy considerations in intrusion)