State v. Edward Ronald Ates (070926)
86 A.3d 710
N.J.2014Background
- Defendant Edward Ates, a Florida resident, was charged with murder in New Jersey after an investigation that used NJ wiretap orders on six numbers.
- Wiretaps monitored from New Jersey included calls involving out-of-state speakers in Florida and Louisiana, including Ates, his wife, and relatives.
- A New Jersey wiretap judge authorized the interceptions; defense moved to suppress out-of-state conversations as extraterritorial and sought dismissal of some evidence.
- Judge Carroll suppressed one privileged attorney-client conversation and noted a discovery-related failure to promptly report the interception breach.
- Trial resulted in a jury verdict of guilty on all counts; Appellate Division upheld, and the Supreme Court granted certification to address Wiretap Act constitutionality.
- The issue presented is whether New Jersey’s Wiretap Act is constitutional because it permits interception of conversations involving individuals outside New Jersey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Wiretap Act constitutional given out-of-state interceptions? | Smith argues the Act permits extraterritorial intercepts without proper nexus to NJ. | Ates contends the act usurps state boundaries and should require Florida/Louisiana judges. | Act is constitutional; nexus to NJ exists and listening post is in NJ. |
| Does the Act’s point-of-interception definition violate privacy or jurisdictional limits? | State asserts lawful scope since listening post is in NJ and intercepts connect to NJ activity. | Ates argues artificial NJ connection expands jurisdiction beyond permissible bounds. | Definition is rational; intercepts are supervised by NJ judges within NJ jurisdiction. |
| Should the indictment be dismissed due to an unlawful attorney-client interception? | State contends remedy was adequate, and isolated interception did not taint the trial. | Ates argues suppression of the tainted materials should lead to dismissal. | Remedy by suppression of improper recording affirmed; indictment not dismissed. |
| Was the prosecutor's summation about a defense medical expert improper, prejudicing the defense? | State contends comments were supported by record and not objected to, thus permissible. | Ates asserts prejudicial comments violated fairness of trial. | affirmed or not reversed on this basis (no reversible error shown). |
| Was the drive reenactment of the Ramsey to Sibley, Louisiana, admissible and prejudicial? | State argues the drive time evidence aided uncovering investigations and was properly disclosed. | Ates claims delayed disclosure and prejudice due to timing of jury selection. | Evidence admissible; disclosure timing not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1967) (privacy protections in electronic surveillance under Fourth Amendment)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy in wiretapping context)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1992) (listening-post location governs interception; multiple jurisdictions possible)
- United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2006) (listening post in jurisdiction allows wiretap for mobile phone abroad)
- Davis v. State, 43 A.3d 1044 (Md. 2012) (interception occurs where listening post is located; mobility of phone favored)
- State v. Worthy, 141 N.J. 368 (N.J. 1995) (statutory territorial jurisdiction and privacy protections)
- State v. Denofa, 187 N.J. 24 (N.J. 2006) (strict construction; nexus to New Jersey required for offenses)
- United States v. Ramirez, 113 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 1997) (cell phone interception valid under federal law regardless of location)