Opinion ID: 3183908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Except in the case of an application

Text: meeting the requirements of [N.J.S.A. 2A:156A- 9, the roving wiretap provision], the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, electronic or oral communications are to be intercepted, are or have been used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by, such individual. [N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-10(a) – (d).] The statute also contains strict minimization requirements. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-12 provides that [n]o order entered under this section shall authorize the interception of any wire, electronic or oral communication for a period of time in excess of that necessary under the circumstances. Every order entered under this section shall require that such interception begin and terminate as soon as practicable and be conducted in such a manner as to minimize or eliminate the interception of such communications not otherwise subject to interception under this act by making reasonable efforts, whenever possible, to reduce the hours of interception authorized by said order. In 1986, Congress amended Title III and added what has become known as the “roving wiretap” provision -- codified at 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(11). Pub. L. No. 99-508, Title I, § 106, 100 Stat. 1848, 1856-57 (1986). Subsection (a) applies to the 20 interception of oral communications; subsection (b) governs wire or electronic communications, which are involved in this appeal. From 1986 to 1998, subsection (b) authorized the issuance of a roving wiretap if (1) a high-level official approved the application; (2) “the application identifies the person believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant makes a showing of a purpose, on the part of that person, to thwart interception by changing facilities”; and (3) “the judge finds that such purpose has been adequately shown.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(11)(b)(i)-(iii) (1986) (amended 1998) (emphasis added). In those cases, it is not necessary for the application to include “a particular description of the nature and location” of the facility to be intercepted, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(1)(b)(ii), or to establish probable cause that the facilities to be intercepted are being used in connection with the commission of the specified offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the target, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(3)(d). Congress amended subsection (b)(ii) in 1998. Pub. L. No. 105-272, Title VI, § 604, 112 Stat. 2396, 2413 (1998). The current law, as revised, requires applicants for a roving wiretap to “make[] a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the person’s actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility.” 18 U.S.C.A. 21 § 2518(11)(b)(ii) (emphasis added). The change in the highlighted language eased the requirements to obtain a roving wiretap. See William C. Banks and M.E. Bowman, Executive Authority for National Security Surveillance, 50 Am. U. L. Rev. 1, 111 (October 2000). Congress also added a section that limits “interception only for such time as it is reasonable to presume that the person identified . . . is or was reasonably proximate” to the facility to be intercepted. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(11)(b)(iv). New Jersey added a roving wiretap provision in 1993. L. 1993, c. 29, § 8. It closely tracked then-existing federal law, and reads as follows: g. An application need not meet the requirements of [N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9(c)(4)] if: . . . . (2) with respect to the application for an interception of a wire or electronic communication:
Attorney General or county prosecutor or a person designated to act for such an official and to perform his duties in and during his actual absence or disability; and
person believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant makes a showing of a purpose, on the part of that 22 person, to thwart interception by changing facilities; and
has been adequately shown. [N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9(g) (emphasis added).] Like under federal law, the carve-out in the first sentence means that the State need not establish “the character and location of the particular wire or electronic communication facilities involved” in the case of a roving wiretap. See N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9(c). When Congress revised the federal standard in 1998, the State Legislature did not follow suit. It maintained the original, stricter standard that requires the State to show the target has a “purpose . . . to thwart interception.” Compare N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9(g)(2)(b) with 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(11)(b)(ii). New Jersey also did not add a proximity requirement. Thus, an application for a roving wiretap under the Act must specify the original facility, but not the character and location of the phone the target jumps to. The application must identify the target whose communications are to be intercepted.2 And, under New Jersey law, the applicant must adequately 2 For a traditional, non-roving wiretap, the order need only identify the target, “if known.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(4)(a) (emphasis added); N.J.S.A. 2A:156-12(b); see also United States v. Petti, 973 F.2d 1441, 1445 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1035, 113 S. Ct. 1859, 123 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1993). 23 demonstrate the target’s purpose to thwart interception by changing facilities. As we noted in Ates, supra, “[t]he Wiretap Act must be strictly construed to safeguard an individual’s right to privacy.” 217 N.J. at 268 (citations omitted). “As with any statute, though, we presume the law is constitutional.” Ibid. Defendant has the burden to overcome that presumption. Ibid.