As has been the case year after year, the criminal cases decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court this past term ran a wide gamut. The four cases discussed below stood out, either because they set new precedent or clarified law that has been evolving or in disarray. Among this small group, one case in particular stood out. The case, State v. Earls, No. 068765 (N.J. July 18, 2013), received national attention because it confronted head-on a difficult question in this era of digital communications: Must a warrant be secured before cellphone location data may be sought by the police from a third-party wireless carrier? In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Rabner, the court held that the New Jersey Constitution confers a protectable privacy interest upon one’s cellphone location information. Unless a recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies, the court ruled, police are obligated to secure a warrant in advance of demanding such information from a wireless carrier.
The case arose out of a 2006 investigation by the Middletown Township Police of a series of residential burglaries. A cellphone stolen during one of the burglaries was traced to a bar in Asbury Park, pursuant to a court order. An individual at the bar who was questioned by the police stated that the cellphone had been sold to him by his cousin, defendant Thomas Earls. Earls, the person stated, had been involved in residential burglaries, storing the proceeds in a storage unit rented by him or his girlfriend, Desiree Gates.
