State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 450 A.2d 952 (N.J. 1982)

Facts

  • State police investigated an illegal sports bookmaking operation involving Robert A. Notaro.
  • A judicially authorized wiretap on Notaro’s phone captured several betting-related calls between Notaro and Merrell Hunt.
  • Surveillance and informant information linked Hunt and Ralph Pirillo, Sr. to bookmaking activity.
  • A reliable informant later told Detective M. Robert Warner that Hunt ran a daily gambling business using two phone numbers.
  • Warner went to the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company and, without a warrant or judicial authorization, obtained Hunt’s telephone toll billing records for a two-month period.
  • The toll records showed patterns of calls, including repeated calls to a sports-results service, and were used to support warrants and the gambling prosecution.
  • Defendants moved to suppress; the trial court denied suppression, defendants pleaded guilty under an agreement, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
  • The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted review primarily to address the constitutionality of obtaining toll billing records without a warrant.

Issues

  1. Whether police acquisition of a subscriber’s telephone toll billing records from a telephone company, without a warrant, violates Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution.
  2. Whether federal Fourth Amendment doctrine (including Smith v. Maryland) controls the state-constitutional analysis of privacy in toll billing records.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the suppression ruling as to the toll billing records.
  • The court held that, under Article I, paragraph 7, telephone subscribers have a protected privacy interest in toll billing records.
  • Obtaining those records from the telephone company without a warrant or a recognized exception constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the New Jersey Constitution.
  • The court directed suppression of the toll records and of derivative evidence to the extent required by state exclusionary principles.
  • The court found no merit in defendants’ other suppression arguments.
  • Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution can provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, and federal search-and-seizure decisions set a minimum level of protection rather than a limit on state protections.
  • Telephone toll billing records can reveal identities of persons called, call frequency, and calling patterns that may disclose associations and activities; this supports a reasonable expectation of privacy in such records.
  • Routine disclosure of dialing information to a regulated telephone utility for billing and operational purposes does not, by itself, eliminate state-constitutional privacy protection.
  • As a general rule, law enforcement must obtain a warrant or comparable judicial authorization to access a subscriber’s toll billing records from a telephone company, absent a valid warrant exception.

Conclusion

The court held that warrantless police acquisition of a subscriber’s telephone toll billing records from a telephone company violates Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, requiring suppression of the records and appropriately tainted derivative evidence.