70 A.3d 592
N.J.2013Background
- Thirteen-year-old M.W. reported her father K.W. for repeated sexual assaults; Essex County Special Victims Unit investigated.
- On Sept. 19, 2009, M.W. gave a recorded statement and, later that day, law enforcement arranged a consensual telephone intercept in which M.W. (a consenting party) called K.W. and he made incriminating statements.
- The assistant prosecutor and a detective proceeded with the consensual intercept believing they had approval; the designated county designee (Chief Assistant Prosecutor Laurino) did not actually authorize the intercept until after it had concluded.
- A search warrant for K.W.’s apartment was issued that evening based on Detective Suarez’s affidavit describing M.W.’s recorded statement (which did not reference the consensual intercept); officers executed the warrant and arrested K.W.
- K.W. moved to suppress the intercepted conversation and derivative evidence under the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -34); trial court suppressed the recording. The Appellate Division affirmed and the State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | K.W.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a consensual telephone intercept conducted without prior prosecutorial approval under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(c) must be suppressed | The 1999 amendment relaxed prior constraints; substantial/prosecutorial review occurred and officers acted in good faith, so suppression should not apply | Prior approval by the Attorney General or county prosecutor (or designee) is required before any consensual intercept; no approval was in place here | Suppression required: the intercept occurred without prior authorized approval, violating the statute, so the recorded conversation is suppressed |
| Whether a good-faith or ministerial-error exception excuses statutory noncompliance | Good-faith belief and ministerial mistakes justify admission; substantial compliance occurred | Wiretap Act contains no good-faith exception; strict compliance required | Rejected: no good-faith exception; motives or honest mistakes do not avoid suppression |
| Whether the 1999 amendment (removing the reasonable-suspicion standard) permits looser compliance or exceptions | Removal of reasonable-suspicion shows Legislature intended less stringent, administrative oversight and not strict suppression | Amendment retained explicit "prior approval" language and does not undermine Worthy’s strict interpretation | Rejected: amendment removed reasonable-suspicion but reinforced "prior approval"; Worthy remains controlling and strict compliance stands |
| Whether doctrines like inevitable discovery or independent source permit admission of intercepted content or derivatives | Intercept would have been authorized contemporaneously or evidence would have been inevitably or independently discovered, so suppression is unnecessary | Wiretap Act’s exclusionary remedy precludes judicially created exceptions such as inevitable discovery or independent-source | Rejected: Court declines to graft inevitable-discovery or independent-source exceptions onto Wiretap Act suppression remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Worthy, 661 A.2d 1244 (N.J. 1995) (held prior prosecutorial approval required for consensual intercepts; suppression remedy is strict with no good-faith or inevitable-discovery exceptions)
- State v. Elders, 927 A.2d 1250 (N.J. 2007) (standard of review: defer to trial-court factfinding if supported by credible evidence)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 658 A.2d 1230 (N.J. 1995) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)