Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Lunsford Phone Records Decision

September 11, 2016 by Fred Sisto

Lunsford Phone Records Decision

Phone Record Criminal AttorneyOn August 1, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of State v. Lunsford. In a 5-2 decision, the Court held that telephone billing records should be available to police based on a showing of relevance, as opposed to the higher “probable cause” standard generally required for a search warrant to issue.

The underlying facts were that after the police arrested the defendant, law enforcement sought and the Monmouth County Grand Jury issued a subpoena to a wireless telephone service provider requesting subscriber information associated with defendant’s cell phone number. The cell phone number that law enforcement had was the mode of contact that was used for the alleged controlled drug buys that led to defendant’s arrest. The subpoena sought customer and billing records, as well as call-detail records, which identify the phone numbers of all incoming and outgoing calls as well as the date, time, and duration of those calls.

Recently retired Monmouth County Judge Mullaney granted the defense motion to quash the subpoena, stating that, under State v. Hunt, a 1982 New Jersey Supreme Court case, a communications data warrant (CDW), which is the equivalent of a search warrant, is needed to obtain telephone billing records. In issuing their decision, the majority noted that the Hunt Court did not address the specific procedure required for the State to obtain the information at issue, but only that a judicial sanction or a judicial proceeding, as opposed to a grand jury subpoena, is necessary.

The majority noted that bank records can be obtained through a grand jury subpoena, upon a finding that the records are relevant. In announcing the change of law at the heart of the case, the majority reasoned that to obtain telephone billing records, the law requires that law enforcement meet a higher threshold and demonstrate probable cause, even though bank records arguably reveal more information than telephone billing records. In address these inconsistent standards, the Court chose to give less privacy protections to billing records. An alternative would have been to bestow greater privacy protections upon bank records. Admittedly, though, bank records were not the issue before the Court so any such change of law would have had to come from a later case. Unfortunately for advocates of maximum privacy protections, that day will not soon come in light of the Lunsford decision.

The majority went on to hold that: to require a showing of probable cause would be contrary to both the traditional authority of the grand jury and society’s legitimate interest in having officials promptly investigate and interrupt criminal activity. To obtain telephone billing or toll records, the State must apply for a court order under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-29(e) of the Wiretap Act. As the statute requires, the State must demonstrate specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are “relevant and material”  to an ongoing criminal investigation. The requested records must cover a finite period of time which does not extend beyond the date of the order.

The majority reasoned that judicial review of such ex parte applications will guard against abuse and root out bulk requests for information that are not connected to a criminal investigation. Skeptics would counter that there is very little public oversight regarding the statistics related to these ex parte applications. Therefore, there is still the potential for abuse from prosecutors and judges.

In dissent, Justice LaVecchia was joined by Judge Cuff, who has now been replaced on the Supreme Court by Justice Timpone. In disagreeing with the majority, they expressed the view that State v. Hunt established a warrant requirement for police access to telephone billing records and that precedent should control.

 

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Judge and Jury, Legal Procedures

Testimonials

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation.

Raumelis R   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 1)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 2)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 1)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 4)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 3)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 2)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 1)
  • Jurisdiction and Subsequent Prosecutions (Part 2)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership
 
Top Criminal Defense Attorney in Brick

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Brick Township Office*:
223 Drum Point Road, Suite 1
Brick Township, NJ 08723

Sea Girt Office*:
2150 NJ-35,
Suite 225
Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

en English
en Englishes Spanish