State v. Gary Lunsford (075691)
141 A.3d 270
N.J.2016Background
- Police arrested Gary Lunsford and a grand jury subpoenaed two weeks of his cell-phone billing and subscriber records from Verizon (after withdrawing a prior request for GPS/location data).
- Trial court quashed the grand jury subpoena, relying on State v. Hunt and related precedent that had required warrants for telephone toll/billing records; State appealed.
- The Attorney General acknowledged a state constitutional privacy interest but argued a grand jury subpoena (relevancy standard) suffices, citing McAllister (bank records) and Reid (ISP subscriber records).
- Defense and amici urged retention of Hunt’s warrant/probable-cause rule, stressing how aggregated call-detail records can reveal intimate associations and risk prosecutorial/grand-jury abuse without judicial oversight.
- The Court surveyed three decades of New Jersey privacy cases (Hunt, Mollica, McAllister, Reid, Earls), identified doctrinal tensions, and concluded telephone billing records should be treated like bank/ISP records but still require judicial review via a court order on a relevancy/showing of "specific and articulable facts."
- The trial court’s quash was affirmed; State may reapply for a court order under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-29(e) showing records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." Judicial oversight is required; location data (more intrusive) still needs a warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether telephone billing/toll records require a probable-cause search warrant under the NJ Constitution | A grand jury subpoena based on relevancy suffices to protect privacy while permitting effective investigations (AG) | Billing records implicate high privacy interests; Hunt and Mollica require a warrant based on probable cause (Lunsford) | Court rejects Hunt/Mollica’s higher standard for billing records and holds a relevancy-based court order under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-29(e) is sufficient, with judicial review required |
| Whether telephone billing records are comparable to bank and ISP subscriber records in privacy sensitivity | Billing records are similar to bank/ISP data and thus should be treated the same (AG) | Billing records are uniquely revealing in aggregate and deserve greater protection (defense/amici) | Court finds billing, bank, and ISP subscriber records disclose comparable private information and merit comparable protection under state law |
| Whether cell-phone location data is governed the same way as billing records | (AG sought parity) | (Defendant/amici argued location data is more intrusive) | Court reaffirms that cell-site/location information is more intrusive and continues to require a warrant based on probable cause (per Earls) |
| Role of judicial oversight and risk of abuse from grand-jury subpoenas | Judicial oversight can be retained while permitting relevancy orders; grand juries remain powerful investigatory tools (AG) | Grand-jury subpoenas lack adequate independent judicial oversight and relevancy is too low a bar; warrant better protects privacy (defense/amici) | Court requires ex parte court order showing "specific and articulable facts" that records are relevant and material; judge may quash/limit overly voluminous requests — balancing privacy and investigatory needs |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338 (1982) (recognized a state-constitutional privacy interest in telephone toll/billing records and criticized seizure without judicial sanction)
- State v. Mollica, 114 N.J. 329 (1989) (extended Hunt to hotel-room telephone billing records and described need for antecedent probable cause under prior precedent)
- State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17 (2005) (recognized privacy interest in bank records but held a grand jury subpoena based on relevancy suffices)
- State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386 (2008) (held ISP subscriber information is protected and that a relevancy-based grand jury subpoena is adequate)
- State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564 (2013) (held cell-phone location data implicates a heightened privacy interest requiring a warrant)
- In re Addonizio, 53 N.J. 107 (1969) (discussed grand jury subpoena power and distinguished nonjudicial governmental demands)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing heightened privacy interests in smartphone contents; distinguishes content searches from metadata/billing records)