Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Gary Lunsford (075691)

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided August 1, 2016No. A-61-14Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice LaVECCHIA

and Judge CUFF (temporarily assigned), concurring and dissenting.

We concur in the judgment that affirms the trial court’s decision to quash the grand jury subpoena for telephone billing records. We respectfully dissent from the portion of the Court’s judgment that permits the State to apply for a court order to obtain those *156records based on the new procedures outlined in the Court’s opinion.

This appeal is about where one puts one’s marker on privacy. For the telephone billing records in issue in this matter, we place our marker where this Court placed it over thirty years ago in State v.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Smith v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. State v. GunwallWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State v. HuntSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  5. State v. MollicaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1989

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API