State v. Hector Feliciano(074395), 132 A.3d 1245

Background

Camden/Philadelphia HIDTA Task Force investigated a large heroin distribution network (2007–2008); investigators obtained ten wiretap orders, eight with roving provisions; two roving taps were activated and later reported to the wiretap judge.
Intercepts captured multiple narcotics transactions, supplier communications, travel to New York, and coordination of distribution; arrests and searches followed; Feliciano was indicted as a leader of a narcotics trafficking network and pleaded guilty to that charge while reserving suppression and dismissal issues on appeal.
Feliciano moved to suppress evidence from the roving wiretaps, arguing the statute and orders lacked required particularity and improperly authorized 24/7 surveillance; he also moved to dismiss the leader-count for insufficient grand jury evidence.
The trial court and Appellate Division denied suppression and dismissal; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to review the constitutionality of the state roving-wiretap statute and the 24/7 interception issue.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the roving-wiretap practice rule: law enforcement may begin monitoring a new facility when a target switches phones to thwart detection, provided statutory prerequisites are met, and must notify the wiretap judge within 48 hours and seek authorization to continue interception.

Issues

Issue	State/Prosecutor Argument	Feliciano Argument	Held
Constitutionality of roving-wiretap provision (particularity)	Roving taps are lawful where judge found probable cause as to target and purpose to thwart interception; federal precedent upholds them	Provision violates particularity and delegates judicial role to police by allowing interception of unspecified new facilities	Statute permissible; exigency created by deliberate facility-switching allows immediate monitoring, but police must notify judge within 48 hours and seek authorization to continue
24/7 interception authorized by wiretap orders	Given unpredictable hours of large-scale narcotics operations, 24/7 interception with minimization directives was reasonable	Orders exceeded "necessary under the circumstances" and failed extrinsic minimization by not specifying hours	No abuse of discretion here; 24/7 may be justified in similar large-scale, unpredictable conspiracies though specifying limited hours is preferred
Sufficiency of grand jury evidence on "leader of narcotics trafficking network" (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3)	Grand jury record supplied ample evidence of conspiracy, leadership, financing, and high-level role	Evidence insufficient to support prima facie leader charge	Conviction affirmed; record provided sufficient evidence on each statutory element
Remedy/safeguards for future roving taps under State Constitution	Practice of notifying judge after switch (as done here) suffices; statute construed to allow prompt judicial review	Proposed reading limiting monitoring to brief exigent period and immediate amendment requirement	Court prescribes 48-hour reporting rule (use section 12(h) report), permitting judge to authorize continuation or order cessation; if delay unavoidable, justify it promptly

Key Cases Cited

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established Fourth Amendment protection for electronic interceptions)
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (requirements for wiretap warrants and judicial oversight)
State v. Marshall, 199 N.J. 602 (2009) (particularity: warrant invalid where police, not magistrate, chose which apartment to search)
United States v. Petti, 973 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1992) (upheld federal roving-wiretap provision against particularity challenge)
United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112 (2d Cir. 1993) (similar support for roving surveillance constitutionality)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell-phone search warrant principles; distinguished here)
State v. DeLuca, 168 N.J. 626 (2001) (recognizing exigent circumstances can justify warrantless steps to preserve evidence)