No. 18-1321

Edward Ronald Ates v. Gurbir Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2019-04-18
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 4th-amendment attorney-client-privilege civil-rights due-process federalism fourth-amendment interstate-communications jurisdictional-authority law-enforcement-surveillance out-of-state-interception phone-call-interception privacy state-jurisdiction wiretap-statute wiretapping
Latest Conference: 2019-05-16
Question Presented (from Petition)

I. Is the New Jersey Wiretap Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq., unconstitutional because it permits law enforcement to intercept phone calls (both cell phone calls and land line calls) placed by and received by out-of-state individuals who have no connection to New Jersey, without the knowledge of or the authority from a tribunal in the jurisdiction where such telephones are registered?

II. Was the Remedy, which was to suppress a privileged telephone call and all subsequent calls, imposed by the Trial Court for the illegally intercepted attorney-client privileged telephone call inadequate, in light of the fact during the improperly intercepted privileged telephone call?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the New Jersey Wiretap Statute violates the Fourth Amendment by permitting law enforcement to intercept phone calls of out-of-state individuals without the knowledge or authority of a tribunal in the jurisdiction where the phones are registered

Docket Entries

2019-05-20
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2019.
2019-04-23
Waiver of right of respondents Gurbir Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey to respond filed.
2019-04-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 20, 2019)

Attorneys

Edward Ates
Joseph Reinhart DonahueBrickfield & Donahue, Petitioner
Gurbir Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey
Catherine A. FoddaiBERGEN COUNTY PROS. OFFICE, Respondent