State v. J.S.G., DOCKET NO. A-4665-14T4
Decision Date | 24 July 2018 |
Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-4665-14T4 |
Citation | 456 N.J.Super. 87,192 A.3d 1 |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.S.G., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel S. Rockoff, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Daniel S. Rockoff, of counsel and on the briefs).
Steven A. Yomtov, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Steven A. Yomtov, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Simonelli, Haas and Rothstadt.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This appeal involves the warrantless, nonconsensual search of children's school records for the name of their father, defendant J.S.G., who was the owner of a vehicle linked to two burglaries. Defendant pled guilty to fourth-degree receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7, after the trial court denied his motion to suppress, and was sentenced to a two-year probationary term. We affirm the denial of the motion, but for different reasons than the court expressed in its February 25, 2015 oral opinion. See Aquilio v. Cont'l Ins. Co. of N.J., 310 N.J. Super. 558, 561, 709 A.2d 231 (App. Div. 1998).
The parties stipulated to the following facts at the suppression hearing. On August 18, 2013, Westville Police Officer Amanda Myers responded to a reported burglary at a home located on Magnolia Street. The homeowner informed Myers that someone broke into his home and stole numerous household appliances and tools valued at approximately $4000. There were no leads developed at the scene.
On August 28, 2013, Westville Police Officer Daniel Garr responded to a reported burglary at another home located on Magnolia Street. An electrician working at the home reported that several appliances valued at approximately $3000 were missing. Garr tire tracks leading from the driveway to the back door of the home that appeared to be wide enough to belong to a large pickup truck. There were no leads developed at the scene.
Westville Police Detective Donald Kiermeier, who was assigned to investigate both burglaries, obtained video surveillance from a building adjacent to the home burglarized on August 28, 2013. The video from one camera showed a pickup truck with five orange lights on the front of the cab driving away from the property, but did not show the driver or license plate number. The vehicle resembled an older two-tone red and silver pickup truck consistent with a 1980s Ford pickup truck (the truck). As the truck backed out of the driveway, it appeared to have items in the bed that were consistent with the appliances stolen from the home. A video from another camera also showed items in the bed that appeared to be appliances.
Kiermeier spoke to residents of Magnolia Street about the burglaries. Based on his description of the truck, a resident said he saw a similar truck frequently parked at another home on Magnolia Street and provided a photo of the truck from his home surveillance system. Kiermeier went to the home the resident identified and spoke to its occupant, L.H., who said the truck was often parked there and belonged to her children's father. L.H. denied knowing about the recent burglaries on Magnolia Street and declined to give Kiermeier any information about him.
While speaking to L.H., Kiermeier noticed she had a child who appeared to be approximately seven years old. He contacted the principal of a local elementary school and asked if she was familiar with L.H. The principal said L.H. had two children enrolled at the school. Kiermeier obtained parental contact information from the principal, which listed defendant as the father. Kiermeier conducted a motor vehicle search and discovered defendant had a red Ford pickup truck registered in his name.
Kiermeier then went to Camden Iron & Metal, Inc. to determine whether defendant had scrapped any of the stolen items there. He obtained receipts for and photographs of items defendant had scrapped, which appeared to match the items stolen on August 18, 2013. He also obtained photographs of the truck, which showed the stolen items in the bed. He spoke to the victim, who positively identified the items shown in the photographs as his stolen property. Defendant was arrested the next day.
On his motion to suppress, defendant argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in personally identifiable information (his name) contained in his children's school records because the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and its corresponding regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 99, and the New Jersey Pupil Records Act (NJPRA), N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19, and its corresponding regulations, N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.1 to - 7.8, guarantee parents the right to safeguard that information from improper disclosure.
The court found an individual ordinarily surrenders a reasonable expectation of privacy in information revealed to a third party and that "a person's name could hardly be thought of as protected privacy information." The court also found the policy behind FERPA and the NJPRA is to protect the student's privacy, not the privacy of the parent's name, and any violation implicated the school, not the police. The court determined that a parent's name could be disclosed under FERPA as "directory information." The court concluded that "no privacy interest was violated so as to require a warrant as to the parent's name" and "[n]o information on the student was used as part of this investigation in any event." The court also held, sua sponte, that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied.
On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions.
Our Supreme Court has established the standard of review applicable to consideration of a trial judge's ruling on a motion to suppress:
Because this appeal involves the court's interpretation of the law, our review is de novo with no deference afforded to the court's legal conclusions. Ibid.
We first address d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. Rutgers
...for administrative enforcement and administrative remedies for improper disclosure of student records." State v. J.S.G., 456 N.J. Super. 87, 100, 192 A.3d 1 (App. Div. 2018) (citations omitted). It "prohibit[s] the federal funding of educational institutions that have a policy or practice o......
-
Livingstone v. Hugo Boss Store
... ... action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be ... granted. When evaluating a ... ...
-
Assad v. Absecon Bd. of Educ., DOCKET NO. A-0252-19T1
...the public schools to have the data necessary to provide a thorough and efficient educational system for all pupils.[State v. J.S.G., 456 N.J. Super. 87, 102 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19).] "N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.1(b), requires school districts to 'compile and maintain student re......
-
State v. Thompson
...recognized, asking defendant for his "name or identification d[id] not implicate the Fourth Amendment." See State v. J.S.G., 456 N.J. Super. 87, 108 (App. Div. 2018). Moreover, the Court has long recognized, "law enforcement's need to respond to the fluidity of a street encounter where ther......