Doe, Matter of
| Citation | 302 N.J.Super. 255,695 A.2d 319 |
| Parties | In the Matter of John DOE and Roe Corporation. |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1997 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Angelo R. Bianchi, Nutley, for petitioners John Doe and Roe Corporation (Bianchi & Bianchi, attorneys; Mr. Bianchi and Mark A. Wenczel, Bloomfield, on the brief).
Linda A. Rinaldi, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent State of New Jersey (Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney; Ms. Rinaldi, of counsel, and on the brief).
Before Judges BROCHIN, KESTIN and EICHEN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
BROCHIN, J.A.D.
The New Jersey Attorney General served investigative interrogatories on John Doe and Roe Corporation 1 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:41-5. That statute reads in part as follows:
a. Whenever the Attorney General determines that there exists a reasonable suspicion that any person or enterprise may have information or be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary materials relevant to an investigation under this chapter [Chapter 41, Racketeering], or whenever the Attorney General believes it to be in the public interest that an investigation be made pursuant to this chapter, he may, prior to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding thereon, issue in writing, and cause to be served upon the person, an investigative interrogatory requiring him to answer and produce material for examination.
The attorney general served two sets of interrogatories, one on John Doe and one on Roe Corporation. Both sets were substantially identical. Each set consisted of 291 questions. Many of the questions had multiple subparts. The interrogatories also required the parties to whom they were addressed to produce all of the corporate records of Roe Corporation. A face sheet attached to each set of interrogatories recited that the information asked for was necessary in connection with the enforcement of the New Jersey Racketeering Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 et seq. and, although the language of the face sheet is ambiguous, it apparently was intended to allege that the suspected conduct which constituted racketeering was "[t]he control and financing of [Roe Corporation] and its owner, [John Doe], by Organized Crime."
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-5j reads in part as follows:
At any time before the return date specified in the interrogatory, such person [i.e., any person upon whom an investigative interrogatory has been served] may file in the Superior Court a petition for an order modifying or setting aside the interrogatory.... The petition shall specify each ground upon which the petitioner relies in seeking relief, and may be based upon any failure of the interrogatory to comply with the provisions of this section or upon any constitutional or other legal right or privilege of the petitioner. In such proceeding the Attorney General shall establish the existence of an investigation pursuant to this chapter and the nature and subject matter of the investigation.
Pursuant to this section, Doe and Roe petitioned the Law Division of the Superior Court "to set aside the Investigative Interrogatories and accompanying request for documents pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:41-5(j)."
Doe and Roe's petition alleged the following grounds for relief:
(1) ... The investigative powers delegated to the attorney general under N.J.S.A. 2C:41-5 are unconstitutional [because] [t]hey impermissibly give the attorney general the power to act as prosecutor and grand jury.
. . . . .
The attorney general has failed to satisfy N.J.S.A. 2C:41-5b(1) by failing to adequately "state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation which is under investigation." ...
(2) ... The investigation violates [Doe's] right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. N.J.S.A. 2C:41-5 does not require the attorney general to establish probable cause. Reasonable suspicion suffices....
[N]o reasonable basis for the State's suspicion exists.
(3) ... [T]he investigative interrogatories served upon [Doe] and [Roe] unconstitutionally deprive [Doe] of his right to due process of law....
(4) ... On the basis of his reasonable fear that the questions put to him will tend to incriminate, [Doe] petitions this court to set aside the Investigative Interrogatories as they violate his right to be free from self-incrimination.
The Law Division (Honorable Richard J. Williams, A.J.S.C.) heard extensive argument on Doe and Roe's petition and on the State's motion to enforce its investigative interrogatories. On October 27, 1995, the petitioners argued their constitutional and statutory objections to the interrogatories. At the commencement of the hearing on that date, Judge Williams summarized his understanding of the issues which petitioners were raising. To the issues which we have listed from the brief submitted in support of the petition, he added the following: "that the investigative interrogatories are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably intrusive."
Judge Williams issued his comprehensive, published opinion sustaining the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-5 on January 31, 1996. See In re Doe, 294 N.J.Super. 108, 682 A.2d 753 (Law Div.1996). The court rejected the petitioners' contentions that the interrogatories should be set aside because petitioners were the intended targets of the State's investigation, id. at 123-26, 682 A.2d 753, but the court required further hearings to consider petitioners' contentions that the individual questions included in the interrogatories were unnecessarily and unfairly broad, vague, and intrusive. Id. at 127, 682 A.2d 753.
On February 23 and February 26, 1996, the hearings were held. As an initial matter, the court rejected the petitioners' contentions that the interrogatories should be set aside because the State had leaked Doe's and Roe's identity to the news media. The court then considered the interrogatories, one by one, and ruled on every objection to their form and substance that petitioners chose to raise. As a result of the arguments presented, the State withdrew or modified many of its interrogatories and the Court struck or modified many others. No copy of the interrogatories, either as originally served on petitioners or as ultimately modified, have been included in the record submitted to us. In their brief to our court, petitioners have not challenged any of the interrogatories because of their specific form or content.
These determinations by Judge Williams resulted in the entry of an interlocutory order dated March 26, 1996 requiring Roe Corporation to accord the State access to its documents and both petitioners to answer the interrogatories within fourteen days; a supplemental order dated April 23, 1996, ordering fines for noncompliance with the prior order; and a June 7, 1996 order denying reconsideration. Petitioners' appeal disputes these orders on essentially the same grounds as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Jersey. Practice Text
...RICO suit against the defendants. See part 3.a of this chapter. 245. In re Doe, 682 A.2d 753, 758 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1996), aff’d , 695 A.2d 319 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997). 246. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:9-9.a(1). 247. Id. § 56:9-9.a(2). 248. Doe , 682 A.2d at 758. 249. Id. 250. Id.......