SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1547-18T4

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SEARCH OF

219 EMMET STREET,

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.

_______________________

Argued March 3, 2020 – Decided May 7, 2020

Before Judges Yannotti and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Union County.

Isaac Wright, Jr. argued the cause for appellant Daniel 

Zuniga (Hunt Hamlin & Ridley, attorneys; Isaac 

Wright, Jr., on the brief).

Milton Samuel Leibowitz, Special Deputy Attorney 

General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause 

for respondent State of New Jersey (Lyndsay V. 

Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney; 

Milton Samuel Leibowitz, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Daniel Zuniga appeals from an October 5, 2018 order denying his request 

under Rule 3:5-6(c) to compel the Union County Prosecutor's Office (UCPO) to 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-1547-18T4

produce copies of documents related to a search warrant executed at his 

property. The trial court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider Zuniga's request 

because the State had not charged him with any crimes. Therefore, the court did 

not consider whether Zuniga established "good cause" to obtain the documents 

as an "aggrieved person" under the rule.

Before this court, the State concedes the trial court had jurisdiction. We 

agree. We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court for a review of the 

application on its merits to determine whether Zuniga has established good 

cause for the release of the search warrant and accompanying documents.

While investigating a homicide in March 2018, the UCPO learned that the 

victim had been at a nightclub in Newark shortly before being shot. The

property was rented to and managed by Zuniga and his brother-in-law. The 

UCPO obtained a search warrant to recover surveillance footage from the 

property. When the officers arrived at the premises to execute the warrant, 

Zuniga let them in.

Once inside, the officers observed a black handgun, several glassine 

envelopes containing a substance that appeared to be heroin, and a sealed plastic 

bag containing a substance that appeared to be marijuana. They also observed 

several marijuana plants with high-powered grow lamps and a water filtration 
3

A-1547-18T4

system enclosed in heavy plastic, and noted a strong odor of marijuana. They 

contacted the Newark Police Department (NPD), who secured the scene and 

obtained a search warrant. During the search, the NPD retrieved multiple guns

and rounds of ammunition, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and drug distribution 

paraphernalia. 

Several days later, Zuniga was arrested and charged in a federal criminal 

complaint with: possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession with intent to distribute cocaine, heroin and 

marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); using and carrying 

a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and maintaining drug-involved premises in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1).1 Zuniga was not charged by the UCPO or in Essex 

County.

In August 2018, Zuniga's counsel spoke with the law clerk of the Union 

County Superior Court judge who had signed the UCPO warrant, inquiring as to 

the procedure to obtain a copy of the warrant and its accompanying 

documentation, including the telephonic affidavit and police reports. Counsel 

advised the judge that Zuniga was charged with federal offenses as a result of 

1 Zuniga was indicted by a federal grand jury on October 31, 2018.
4

A-1547-18T4

the search. However, when counsel requested information regarding the 

warrant, the federal authorities told him the UCPO warrant "was not relevant to 

their case because they [were] relying on a subsequent warrant issued by an

Essex County Superior Court judge." Therefore, the federal government did not 

have the warrant or the supporting documents in its possession. The judge 

directed counsel to file a request with the UCPO and, if unsuccessful, to file the 

proper application with the trial court. 

Thereafter, Zuniga filed an application with the trial court requesting an 

order directing the UCPO to provide him with a copy of the search warrant, 

related police reports, and other documents. 

On October 5, 2018, the court denied Zuniga's request. In its order, the 

court found Zuniga could not seek the requested discovery items because (1) the 

State had not charged him with any crimes, and (2) the court lacked jurisdiction 

to order the UCPO to provide him with the requested discovery. The order refers 

to a telephone conference, but we were not supplied with any transcripts.

On appeal, Zuniga argues the trial court improperly denied his request for 

copies of the search warrant, accompanying affidavit and other related 

documents because (1) the court had jurisdiction to hear his application, and (2) 
5

A-1547-18T4

he established good cause to pierce the privilege of confidentiality afforded to 

search warrant documents as an "aggrieved person" under Rule 3:5-6(c). 

As conceded by the State, the trial court erred in finding it lacked 

jurisdiction to entertain Zuniga's application. Dual sovereignty principles 

permit "[s]tates [to] possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the [f]ederal 

[g]overnment, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause." 

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991) (quoting Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 

U.S. 455, 458 (1990)); see U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

The dual sovereignty doctrine "recognizes that separate governmental 

jurisdictions have concurrent power to proscribe criminal conduct and to 

prosecute crime; and, further, each sovereign may exercise this power without 

regard to whether particular conduct is or was the subject of separate criminal 

proceedings undertaken by another jurisdiction." State v. Goodman, 92 N.J. 43, 

51 (1983) (citing United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922)); ibid.

(recognizing that dual sovereignty is firmly established in New Jersey) (citing 

State v. Cooper, 54 N.J. 330, 338 (1969)).

Therefore, although Zuniga was charged with federal offenses, New 

Jersey retained its police powers to establish and enforce laws. This included 
6

A-1547-18T4

the authority to consider Zuniga's application for the UCPO warrant and 

accompanying documents under Rule 3:5-6(c). 

Because the trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider 

Zuniga's application, it made no determination whether Zuniga was entitled to 

production of the requested documents. Nevertheless, Zuniga contends he 

satisfied the requirements of the rule. We disagree.

Under Rule 3:5-6(c), a search warrant and its related documents are 

confidential, "except that the warrant and accompanying papers shall be 

provided to the defendant in discovery pursuant to [Rule] 3:13-3 and available 

for inspection and copying by any person claiming to be aggrieved by an 

unlawful search and seizure upon notice to the county prosecutor for good cause 

shown." (emphasis added).

The State does not dispute that Zuniga is an aggrieved person. Indeed, 

Zuniga operated a business at the location that was searched and was indicted 

as a result of evidence seized pursuant to the search. The State does dispute that 

Zuniga established good cause because he has not explained why he needs the 

information he seeks, and he has not outlined what information was provided to 

the trial court in support of his application.
7

A-1547-18T4

Presumably, Zuniga seeks the UCPO search warrant and related 

documents to aid in his defense against the federal charges. He asserts he cannot 

obtain the materials as part of the federal discovery production because the 

federal authorities do not have the documents. On remand, the trial court must 

determine whether Zuniga has established good cause to order the UCPO to 

produce the warrant and other requested materials.

Reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do 

not retain jurisdiction.