Legal Opinion
State v. Hector Feliciano(074395)
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided March 9, 2016No. A-24-14PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rajbner
This case raises a novel question about the constitutionality of the roving wiretap provision of the State’s wiretap law. As a general rule, law enforcement officials must follow a strict set of procedures and get court approval before they may intercept communications over a telephone facility. Among other requirements, the State must identify in advance the specific facility it seeks to intercept.
If a suspect purposely switches telephone facilities to thwart detection, though, he can effectively avoid being intercepted. To address that situation, both federal and state law contain a “roving…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Kentucky v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Berger v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Riley v. Cal. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- State v. Gary Lunsford (075691)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2016
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSHUA NICHOLSON (13-12-0773, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2017
- Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cnty. Prosecutor's OfficeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2018
- State v. FergusonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2018
- State v. AloiNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2019
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.