Court Opinion

ID: 9695742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:28:25.837011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:15.891648
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
So far as Judge Hoffman is concerned, it is irrelevant whether the New Jersey wiretap was legal or illegal. Thus he says:
Section 5703 [of the Crimes Code, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, No. 327, § 3,] was not aimed solely at deterring Pennsylvania police practices; rather, it expressed hostility to wiretap evidence. The section does not except evidence seized legally in another jurisdiction.
Dissenting opinion at 474 of 245 Pa.Super., at 501 of 369 A.2d (emphasisadded).
*475In contrast, for Judge Price, Judge Cercone, and Judge Van der Voort it is critical whether the New Jersey wiretap was legal or illegal. Thus Judge Price says:
We must conclude that the use in this Commonwealth of information secured through a valid, legal, properly authorized wiretap in a foreign jurisdiction is not in contravention of the Pennsylvania anti-wiretapping statutes, and that the evidence seized in Pennsylvania under such a warrant is admissible.
Majority opinion at 460, 369 A.2d at 494 (footnote omitted, emphasis added).
Judge Cercone:
The dissent states that by barring the use of wiretap evidence lawfully obtained in another state, . we would secure the public policy of Pennsylvania ... I fail to see how.
Concurring opinion at 463, 369 A.2d at 495 (emphasis added).
And Judge Van der Voort:
I . believe it improper for our Courts to exclude evidence obtained lawfully in one of our sister states ....
Concuring opinion at 466, 369 A.2d at 497 (emphasis added).
Therefore, the question raised by the opinions of Judge Price, Judge Cercone, and Judge Van der Voort is, “Was the New Jersey wiretap illegal?” None of them, however, addresses this question. Each of them assumes that the wiretap was legal. Each of them, moreover, makes this assumption without any discussion. This surprises me, and will surprise the parties, for whether the New Jersey wiretap was illegal is a principal question that has been briefed and argued to us.
I am myself inclined to agree with Judge Hoffman’s interpretation of Section 5703. However, I find the legislative history quite ambiguous. In these circumstances I am unwilling to rest my decision on an interpretation *476of Section 5708. Instead, I prefer to consider whether the New Jersey wiretap was illegal, particularly since, as nearly as I can see now, it was illegal.
Section 12 f of the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A.T56A-12 f, provides:
No order entered under this section shall authorize the interception of any wire 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 State v. Dye, 60 N.J. 518, 291 A.2d 825, application denied, 409 U.S. 1004, 93 S.Ct. 457, 34 L.Ed.2d 297, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1090, 93 S.Ct. 699, 34 L.Ed.2d 675 (1972), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that on the particular facts before it, a wiretap authorized for 30 days, from 10:00 a. m. to 3:00 p. m., Monday through Saturday, was not overbroad. The court concluded that the remedy for every conversation within those hours having been recorded was partial suppression, that is, suppression of those conversations “irrelevant” to the order authorizing the wiretap.
In 1975 the New Jersey legislature amended the New Jersey Act with a specific purpose of overcoming the decision in State v. Dye. Thus Section 21 of the Act was amended to provide:
Any aggrieved person . . . may move to suppress ... on the grounds that:
c. The interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or in accordance *477with the requirements of Section 12 . .If the motion is granted, the entire contents of all intercepted wire or oral communications obtained during or after any interception which is determined to be in violation of this act ... or evidence derived therefrom, shall not be received in evidence in the trial, hearing or proceeding.
§ 21 of the Act, as amended N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-21 (1975 Supp.). (Italics indicate portions added by 1975 Amendment).
Also, Section 12 of the Act was amended. That section has been quoted above. The amendment was the final clause of the minimization requirement, that there must be “reasonable efforts, whenever possible, to reduce the hours of interception authorized by said order.” § 12 of the Act, as amended, N.J.S.A. 2A.T56A-12 (1975 Supp.). The Commission statement accompanying the amendments explains:
8. (The present provision has been interpreted by some law enforcement officials to mean shutting the machine off as such communications arise.)
18. If a motion to suppress the contents of an interception is granted, the Committee amendments provide that all of the interceptions made after that, both relevant and irrelevant, will be suppressed. This amendment is designed to overrule State v. Dye, 60 N.J. 518, 291 A.2d 825, as to those relevant interceptions made after a violation of the requirements of the order has taken place.
Commission’s Comment, N.J.S.A. 2A.T56A-1 et seq.
Here, the order authorized a wiretap for 24 hours a day, for a maximum of 15 days, to be conducted “in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the interception of communications other than the type described herein-*478above,” as required by Section 12 of the New Jersey Act. However, Officer Harding of the New Jersey State Police testified at the suppression hearing that the telephone was monitored 24 hours a day, by a total of 10 to 15 men, and that every conversation was transcribed. (N.T. 19-21, 24.) So far as appears, absolutely no attempt was made to comply with the minimization requirement either of the order or of the Act.
The legality of the wiretap was argued below but is not addressed by the lower court in its opinion. Therefore, the case should be remanded. On remand the lower court should make such factual determinations as may be necessary, and should decide the legality of the wiretap under the New Jersey Act.1 See my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Houser, 232 Pa.Super. 384, 334 A.2d 691 (1975). Then, on any subsequent appeal, we should be in a position to decide this case in a proper way.
I therefore concur with the majority that the order of the lower coürt should be reversed, but I dissent from the majority’s reasoning and its outright reversal; I should reverse and remand with instructions to proceed as I have indicated.

. Appellant has argued that the wiretap was illegal not only under Section 12 of the New Jersey Act, but for other reasons (which I have found it unnecessary to discuss): lack of notice of the wiretap, N.J.S.A. 2A.-156A-16; divulgence of evidence beyond that authorized by the order; and violation of the custody provision of the Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-14. On remand the lower court should also address the issues raised by these arguments.