Opinion ID: 1937898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: use of derivative evidence

Text: Burstein and Greenhause have raised the question of whether derivative evidence from tapes that were suppressed because of a sealing violation must also be suppressed. Although our decision not to apply Cerbo retroactively and suppress the tapes makes it unnecessary to decide this question, we nevertheless believe that it would be appropriate to address the issue because it has been fully briefed and argued, and because the situation may arise in the future if tapes are suppressed because of a post- Cerbo sealing violation. The defendants have argued that the plain language of the sealing provision requires the suppression of derivative evidence as well as the tapes. They rely principally upon N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-14: The presence of the seal provided by this section, or a satisfactory explanation for its absence, shall be a prerequisite for the disclosure of the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, under subsection b of section 17 of this act. [Emphasis added]. On its face the above language would appear to bar the use at trial not only of the Greenhause tapes, but of any evidence derived from those tapes. This result has been reached by at least one court interpreting the identical evidence derived therefrom language of the federal sealing provision. United States v. Caruso, 415 F. Supp. 847, 850 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff'd, 553 F. 2d 94 (2d Cir.1977). [5] The logic of suppressing derivative evidence in cases involving a sealing violation is simple: much of the deterrent sting would be taken out of the suppression sanction announced in Cerbo if police could use unsealed tapes to secure additional tapes or evidence, which would be admissible against those as to whom the unsealed tapes are inadmissible. There are, however, other features of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-14 which lead us to hold that evidence derived from an unsealed tape need not necessarily be suppressed. The Legislature, by restricting the suppression sanction to prohibiting use of the tapes under subsection b of section 17, deliberately left open the possibility that the tapes might be used under subsection a of that section. Subsection a allows a law enforcement officer to disclose the contents of a wiretap to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure or use is appropriate to the proper performance of his duties. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-17 a. Such use would extend to establishing probable cause for future wiretaps and search warrants, as the legislative history of the virtually identical federal sealing provision indicates. 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2122, 2188. Thus, the policy of allowing the tapes to be used to establish probable cause conflicts with the policy of suppressing both the unsealed tapes and evidence derived therefrom. This issue has arisen several times in the Second Circuit. In Caruso, supra, 415 F. Supp. at 850 n. 2, the court said in dicta that evidence derived from unsealed tapes should be suppressed. However, in United States v. Fury, 554 F. 2d 522 (2d Cir.1977), the Second Circuit held admissible the evidential by-products derived from tapes that were themselves inadmissible due to the 14-day sealing delay. In reaching its decision, the court relied on the federal legislative history, which indicated that proper sealing was not a prerequisite for use of the tapes to establish probable cause for future wiretaps, and on the fact that the sealing delay was a post-intercept violation which did not render the wiretap void at the outset. 554 F. 2d at 531-32. The foundation for this latter reasoning had been established in United States v. Ricco, 421 F. Supp. 401 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). In that decision, post-intercept violations such as a sealing delay were distinguished from violations which render a wiretap void at the outset (such as deficiencies in the order). The latter class of violations usually amounts to a search and seizure that is already illegal at the time the derivative evidence is acquired. In the former class of violations, however, the intrusion is often lawful at the time the derivative evidence is obtained. A subsequent sealing delay which simply violates a statutory prophylactic rule was thus deemed not to contaminate retroactively the earlier lawful use of the tapes to establish probable cause. Unsealed tapes were analogized to hearsay evidence, which is not sufficiently reliable to justify its admission at trial, but which may nevertheless be used to establish probable cause. 421 F. Supp. at 404 n. 3. This reasoning may guide us in our attempt to resolve these two competing interpretations of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-14. In the present case, the Burstein wiretap was begun three days before the Greenhause wiretap ended. At that time the sealing requirement had not yet been triggered and the wiretap was still lawful. Search warrants were executed soon after the Greenhause wiretap ended and were based largely on information gathered from the Burstein wiretap, which did not involve a sealing delay. Because these evidential by-products were derived prior to the sealing delay, at a time before the Greenhause tapes became contaminated, we would hold them admissible even if the failure to seal required suppression of the Greenhause tapes. Had the derivative evidence been obtained after the sealing delay tainted the tapes and made their integrity suspect, a different result might be appropriate. On that question we reserve judgment.