## Facts

- Applicants sought non-supervisory casino employee licenses in Atlantic City under New Jersey’s Casino Control Act.
- The licensing scheme required applicants to complete a detailed application, authorize broad record disclosures, and consent to investigatory measures.
- Applicants challenged statutory provisions and specific application questions as unconstitutional intrusions on privacy, association, search-and-seizure rights, and the privilege against self-incrimination.
- The Casino Control Commission modified some questions but maintained other contested requirements.
- The dispute reached the New Jersey Supreme Court for review of the constitutionality and permissible scope of the licensing and investigation process.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning casino-employee licensure on broad consents and investigatory access authorizes unreasonable searches and seizures under the federal and state constitutions.
2. Whether compelled disclosure of extensive personal and financial information and blanket record releases violates privacy protections.
3. Whether compelled disclosure of memberships and relationships violates freedom of association by chilling lawful affiliations.
4. Whether requiring applicants to answer background questions violates the privilege against self-incrimination.

## Decision

- The court largely upheld the Casino Control Act’s licensing and investigatory framework against a facial constitutional challenge.
- The court held that casino gaming is a heavily regulated industry and that the State has a compelling interest in preventing criminal influence and protecting the public.
- The court construed the Act and required consents to avoid unlimited or arbitrary intrusions, especially regarding searches beyond casino premises and into private homes or effects.
- The court directed that information demands and investigative steps must be limited to matters reasonably necessary and substantially connected to the Act’s public-protection purposes.
- The court rejected the self-incrimination challenge on the ground that the process is civil/regulatory and that applicants may assert the privilege as to particular genuinely incriminating questions.

## Legal Principles

- In pervasively regulated industries, the government may impose more intrusive licensing and investigative requirements than in ordinary employment, given strong public-protection objectives.
- Even in a heavily regulated context, investigations and information demands must be reasonably related to legitimate statutory purposes and may not be arbitrary or purely exploratory.
- Privacy-intrusive disclosures and record authorizations in occupational licensing are permissible when reasonably necessary to assess integrity and suitability, but must be constrained to relevant subject matter.
- Compelled association-related disclosures require a demonstrable connection to suitability and integrity; unnecessary chilling of lawful affiliations is impermissible.
- A regulatory licensing scheme does not, by itself, violate the privilege against self-incrimination; the privilege may be invoked in response to particular incriminating inquiries.

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the casino-employee licensing regime while imposing limiting constructions and guidelines requiring that searches, disclosures, and association inquiries remain closely tied to the statute’s integrity and public-protection goals.


In re Application of Martin, 447 A.2d 1290 (N.J. 1982)