Court Opinion

ID: 9636679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:38:38.029658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:55.861606
License: Public Domain

Justice WALLACE,
concurring in the result.
The singular issue in this case is whether the State’s acquisition of defendant’s bank records by grand jury subpoena was defective because it was not based on probable cause. In rejecting a probable cause requirement in In re Addonizio, Chief Justice Weintraub, writing for the Court, declared that “the ‘probable cause’ required for a search warrant is foreign to [the grand jury] scene.” Supra, 53 N.J. at 126, 248 A.2d 531. Chief Justice Weintraub explained that the grand juries’
power to investigate would be feeble indeed if the grand jury had to know at the outset everything needed to arrest a man or to invade his home. Nor would it serve the public interest to stay a probe until the grand jury reveals what it has or what it seeks. Such disclosures could defeat the inquiry and impede the apprehension of the culprit. This is one of the reasons why the law cloaks the grand jury investigation with secrecy.
[Mid]
The Addonizio Court held that “the requirement is ‘that the subpoena be sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and *44specific in directive so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome.’ ” Id. at 128, 248 A.2d 531. The majority cites Addonizio approvingly, agrees that relevancy is the standard for a grand jury subpoena of bank records, and finds that requirement was satisfied here. I concur in that conclusion.
However, in deciding this case, it is not necessary to make a constitutional pronouncement that we have a protected reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records. We have stated on numerous occasions that “ ‘a court should not reach and determine a constitutional issue unless absolutely imperative in the disposition of [the] litigation.’ ” Bell v. Stafford Tp., 110 N.J. 384, 389, 541 A.2d 692 (1988) (quoting Donadio v. Cunningham, 58 N.J. 309, 325-326, 277 A.2d 375, (1971)); citing Ahto v. Weaver, 39 N.J. 418, 428, 189 A.2d 27 (1963); State v. Salerno, 27 N.J. 289, 296, 142 A.2d 636 (1958) and American Bank & Trust Co. of Pennsylvania v. Lott, 193 N.J.Super. 516, 521, 475 A.2d 73 (App.Div.1984), aff'd, 99 N.J. 32, 490 A.2d 308 (1985).
Justice Clifford essentially expressed my view when he emphasized that “there is the sound, oft-expressed principle that constitutional questions should not be reached and resolved unless absolutely imperative in the disposition of the litigation.” State v. Saunders, 75 N.J. 200, 229, 381 A.2d 333 (1977) (Clifford, J., dissenting) (citations omitted). Justice Clifford stressed that “[w]hile the adjudicative process admits of few unyielding rules, this maxim comes as close as any to being an absolute.” Ibid. Inasmuch as we all agree that the relevancy standard for the grand jury subpoena for defendant’s bank records was met here, we should defer addressing the constitutional issue.
Justices LaVECCHIA and RIVERA-SOTO join in this opinion.
For affirmance in part/reversal in part — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE and RIVERA-SOTO — 7.
Opposed — None.