State v. Burstein
| Decision Date | 16 March 1981 |
| Citation | 427 A.2d 525,85 N.J. 394 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Stuart BURSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Matthew GREENHAUSE, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Nicholas BARRISE, Defendant-Appellant, and STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Concetta DeHART, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Gregory J. Aprile, Paterson, for Burstein (Philip M. Saginario, Paterson, attorney).
Barry G. Evertz, Hackensack, for Barrise and DeHart.
Gage Andretta, Asst. Essex County Prosecutor, for respondent and cross-appellant (John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen., attorney; Donald S. Coburn, Essex County Prosecutor, of counsel; Gage Andretta, Miriam Kahan Brody, Asst. Essex County Prosecutor, and Marc J. Friedman, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the briefs).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
These cases present several questions relating to New Jersey's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("Wiretap Act"), N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq.
The sealing provision of the Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-14, requires tapes of all intercepted conversations to be presented "immediately" to an appropriate judge for sealing. In State v. Cerbo, 78 N.J. 595, 397 A.2d 671 (1979), we held that a delay in presenting the We are presented with two additional questions: first, when tapes are suppressed because of a sealing delay, whether derivative evidence from those tapes is nevertheless admissible at trial; and second, whether the State complied with its obligation to minimize both its hours of interception and its interception of non-relevant calls within the hours of interception.
tapes for sealing would result in suppression of the tapes unless there was a satisfactory explanation for the delay. This case presents the question of whether Cerbo should be applied retroactively to suppress tapes whose late sealing occurred prior to February 2, 1979, the date of that decision.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we hold that Cerbo is not to be applied retroactively, even to cases that have not yet exhausted all direct avenues of appeal. We further note that, when tapes are suppressed because of a sealing violation, evidence derived from other wiretaps or search warrants based on those tapes is nevertheless admissible at trial where the derivative wiretap or search warrant was authorized prior to the sealing violation. Finally, we hold that the State fully complied with all of its minimization obligations in the instant wiretap.
These cases involve appeals from two Appellate Division decisions, State v. Burstein, 172 N.J.Super. 388, 412 A.2d 452 (1980), and State v. Barrise, 173 N.J.Super. 549, 414 A.2d 989 (1980), which disagreed on the question of whether Cerbo should be applied retroactively. The facts of each case will be discussed separately.
On October 25, 1978, Stuart Burstein and Matthew Greenhause pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
The case against them had been based largely on evidence derived from a series of wiretaps conducted by the Essex County Prosecutor's Office between December 2, 1977, and On December 2, 1977, the Prosecutor's Office applied for an order authorizing a wiretap of the phone of Matthew Greenhause. The application was made to Assignment Judge Arthur J. Blake of the Superior Court, Law Division, who had been designated by Chief Justice Hughes, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-2(i), to authorize such applications. The wiretap was sought as part of an ongoing investigation of a major Essex County narcotics network in which Greenhause was believed to play a major part. Judge Blake granted the order, authorizing 24-hour surveillance for a period of 20 days. Such round-the-clock surveillance was based on a showing by the Prosecutor's Office that there was a "special need" for it, due to "the magnitude of the operation" and the observation of several of the State's affiants that, based on their experience, "this type of narcotics dealer converses with his associates at any time of day or night."
January 5, 1978. The tapes from those wiretaps are the subject of this appeal.
The police continued to tap Greenhause's phone throughout the month of December, receiving one extension. On December 28, 1977, the State applied to Judge Blake for authorization to intercept conversations over the telephone of Stuart Burstein. Probable cause for the Burstein wiretap was derived largely from information gathered during the Greenhause wiretap.
The Greenhause wiretap was terminated on December 31, 1977, and the Burstein wiretap on January 5, 1978. On that day both men's residences were searched pursuant to court-authorized search warrants, and narcotics were seized in both places. The affidavits in support of both search warrants included numerous conversations intercepted during the wiretaps.
The tapes of the Burstein wiretap were sealed six days after its termination. The tapes of the Greenhause wiretap, however, were not presented to Judge Blake for sealing until January 30, 1978, a delay of 30 days. The reason given by the State for its delay in presenting the tapes for sealing was that the Attorney General had changed the format for drawing up notices of At a pretrial hearing on October 25, 1978, the defendants moved to suppress both the tapes of the wiretap and the evidence derived as fruits of the wiretap. Both motions were denied, and the defendants pled guilty, reserving their right to raise the suppression issues on appeal.
inventory, a procedure by which the judge is given a list of all parties whose conversations were intercepted so that appropriate notification can be given. 1 This change in format had made it necessary to redo all of the original notices of inventory, which were still unfinished as of January 30, 1978. By that time, however, the State had become sufficiently concerned about the delay to present the tapes for sealing without notices of inventory.
While the appeal was pending, we announced our decision in State v. Cerbo, 78 N.J. 595, 397 A.2d 671 (1979). The defendants then argued before the Appellate Division that Cerbo should be applied retroactively to suppress the Greenhause tapes. They further argued, among other things, that the Burstein tapes and all other evidence derived from the Greenhause wiretap should be suppressed as well and that the State had failed to make reasonable efforts to minimize its interception of non-pertinent conversations during the Greenhause wiretap.
The Appellate Division agreed that the Greenhause tapes should be suppressed, but declined to suppress the Burstein tapes or other evidence derived from the Greenhause wiretap. State v. Burstein, 172 N.J.Super. 388, 412 A.2d 452 (1980). The court, concluding that there was no satisfactory explanation for the sealing delay, suppressed the Greenhause tapes, not as a matter of
retroactivity, but because both the sealing requirement and a suppression sanction had been plainly spelled out in N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-14 since 1968, well before the events in this case. The court concluded that there was no retroactivity question involved, and remanded the case for the purpose of giving the defendants an opportunity to reconsider their guilty pleas.
On July 16, 1974, Judge Blake authorized a 21-day wiretap of a telephone listed to D. Glovan, Newark, New Jersey. The wiretap was sought as part of a joint investigation by a City of Newark Essex County Strike Force into a suspected lottery operation being run on those premises.
The wiretap ran until August 1, 1974. On that date search warrants were issued for five different locations, and a "sweep" was executed. Several suspects were arrested, including defendants Nicholas Barrise and Concetta DeHart.
On August 6, 1974, the tapes were ready to be presented to Judge Blake for sealing. However, the judge was away on vacation for the month. The State did not present the tapes to another judge for sealing because the statute had unequivocally directed that the tapes "shall be transferred to the judge issuing the order and sealed under his direction." N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-14 (emphasis added). Thus the tapes remained in a sealed package inside a vault in the Prosecutor's Office rather than being presented for sealing. Nor were the tapes presented for sealing during the first week of September, at which time Judge Blake was attending the annual State Judicial College. The tapes were finally presented to Judge Blake for sealing on September 10, a delay of 40 days.
The tapes were used against both Barrise and DeHart at trial and on January 23, 1978, both defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to violate the State gambling laws.
Barrise and DeHart appealed their convictions on several grounds, including the State's failure to comply with the sealing requirement. The Appellate Division agreed that the sealing With Barrise in direct conflict with the previous Appellate Division decision in State v. Burstein, supra, 172 N.J.Super. 388, 412 A.2d 452, we granted certification to resolve the dispute as to whether Cerbo should be applied retroactively, as well as to resolve the other questions discussed in this opinion. 3
delay had violated N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-14, but refused to apply Cerbo retroactively and suppress the tapes. State v. Barrise, 173 N.J.Super. 549, 414 A.2d 989 (1980). Although it rejected the State's justification for the sealing delay (concluding that Judge Blake was available despite his vacation),2 the court declined to suppress the tapes. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Catania
...... See State v. Molinaro, supra, 117 N.J.Super. at 290, 284 A.2d 385. On the contrary, in State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 414-416, 427 A.2d 525, 535-536 (1980), we today upheld the reasonableness of an Essex County wiretap in which intrinsic minimization was employed, although highly personal conversations were intermixed with frequent references to criminal activity. . Page 446 . ......
-
State v. Novembrino
......79, 85, 494 A.2d 1007 (1985) ("Deterrence of future unlawful police conduct is the 'prime purpose' of the exclusionary rule, 'if not the sole one,' " quoting Immigration and Naturalization Serv. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984); State v. Burstein......
-
State v. Knight
....... A . This Court has four options in any case in which it must determine the retroactive effect of a new rule of criminal procedure. [678 A.2d 651] See State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 402-03, 427 A.2d 525 (1981). The Court may decide to apply the new rule purely prospectively, applying it only to cases in which the operative facts arise after the new rule has been announced. Ibid. Alternatively, the Court may apply the new rule in future cases and in the case in ......
-
State v. Brunson
...... That modification of the manner in which the State may impeach the credibility of a testifying defendant will apply only prospectively, affording defendant in this case the benefit of our decision. See State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 403, 427 A.2d 525 (1981). . Page 395 . The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Law Division for retrial. . HANDLER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. . Defendant was convicted ......