State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564

Background

In Jan. 2006 police investigating burglaries obtained three real-time cell-site location reports from T‑Mobile for a phone believed used by defendant Earls without a warrant; those leads led police to a motel where Earls was arrested and evidence was seized.
The trial court found Earls had a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell‑phone location data but admitted the evidence under the emergency‑aid (exigent‑circumstances) doctrine.
The Appellate Division reversed on different grounds, holding there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in general cell‑site location and that evidence was properly seized as plain view.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted cert to decide whether users have a State‑constitutional privacy right in cell‑phone location info and whether a warrant is required, and asked supplemental briefing on retroactivity and current technology.
The Court found cell phones function as continuous, precise tracking devices (network‑based and handset/GPS methods), that modern data can reveal intimate details of movements and associations, and that users do not reasonably expect government tracking via carriers.
The Court held Article I, ¶7 of the New Jersey Constitution protects cell‑phone location information and requires a warrant supported by probable cause (absent an applicable exception); the new rule applies prospectively and to Earls, but not fully retroactively; remanded to assess emergency aid application.

Issues

Issue	Earls' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell‑phone location information under the NJ Constitution	Yes — modern cell tracking is intrusive, reveals intimate details, and the public/private distinction is blurred	No — the data was generalized and reflected public movements; today’s precise tracking raises concerns but differs from the 2006 traces	Held: Yes; users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell‑phone location data under Article I, ¶7
Whether police must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause to access cell‑phone location information	Warrant required for privacy protection; consistent with prior NJ decisions protecting third‑party records	Warrant not required for generalized, short‑term location; emergency aid exception applies here	Held: Warrant required (unless a recognized exception like exigency applies); remanded to determine applicability of emergency aid doctrine
Whether this holding is a new rule and should be applied retroactively	Argues it is a logical extension of precedent and should apply retroactively	Contends it is a new rule and should be prospective only	Held: New rule; applied prospectively and to this defendant; effective 30 days for future cases; prior cases governed by the law in effect when investigated
Whether plain‑view seizure of motel items was lawful given warrantless location tracing	Implied challenge: seizure flowed from unlawful locator method	Argues plain‑view exception justified seizure	Held: State cannot show officers were lawfully in viewing area because their presence derived from warrantless acquisition of cell‑site data; plain view does not salvage seizure; remand for emergency‑aid analysis

Key Cases Cited

State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386 (2008) (rejecting third‑party disclosure doctrine under State Constitution for Internet subscriber info)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS installation on vehicle was a Fourth Amendment search; concurring opinions emphasized privacy concerns from long‑term location tracking)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (using sense‑augmenting technology to obtain details of home interior implicates reasonable expectations of privacy)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established reasonable expectation of privacy test)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (no expectation of privacy in movements on public roads for short‑term beeper monitoring)
United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (beeper monitoring that revealed presence in private home violated Fourth Amendment)
State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338 (1982) (New Jersey Court recognition that State Constitution can afford greater privacy protection than federal precedents)
State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (2012) (restated emergency‑aid exigent‑circumstances test governing warrantless entries/searches)