Chief Justice Rabner continued in relevant part: The Court next considers whether the requests for information in this appeal are subject to the enhanced privacy protections of the wiretap acts. The State argues the wiretap acts do not apply because the stored...
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Federal law authorizes government entities to require disclosure of a communication “that is in electronic storage” for 180 days or less pursuant to a warrant, or that “has been in electronic storage” for more...
Chief Justice Rabner continued in relevant part: Based on the language and structure of the relevant statutes, the State’s request for information from users’ accounts invokes heightened privacy protections. The nearly contemporaneous acquisition of electronic...
On June 29, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the consolidated Mercer and Atlantic County cases of Facebook v. State of New Jersey. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether a wiretap order was required to compel Facebook to disclose user account...
The United State Supreme Court majority concluded with the following in relevant part: Since “encourages or induces” draws on the same common-law principles, clause (iv) also incorporates a mens rea requirement implicitly. Finally, it bears emphasis that the canon of...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Statutory history is an important part of the relevant context. When Congress enacted in 1885 what would become the template for clause (iv), it criminalized “knowingly assisting, encouraging or soliciting”...
The United States Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Neither requires lending physical aid; for both, words may be enough. And both require an intent to bring about a particular unlawful act. The terms “encourage” and “induce,” found in clause (iv),...
On June 23, 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of U.S. v. Helaman Hansen. The principal issue before the Court concerned the constitutionality of a statute concerning the inducement of an alien to unlawfully enter the United States. Justice Barrett...
Justice Faciale continued in relevant part: The Parole Board and Appellate Division concluded that the language “include, among other things,” in (b)(1)(a) should be read expansively to authorize the requirement that Williams reside at the RTP. In J.K. v. State Parole...
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The Parole Board cannot mandate participation in an RTP for inmates administratively paroled under the EYWO Act. Although N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59 generally authorizes the Parole Board to impose parole conditions on...