N.J.S.A. 2C:39-39f prohibits the manufacture, trans-
port, sale or disposition of body armor penetrating
bullets.
WIRETAPPINGWIRETAPPINGWIRETAPPINGWIRETAPPINGWIRETAPPING
I. HISTORY-PURPOSE
Prior to the adoption of the New Jersey Wiretapping
and Electronic Surveillance Control Act of 1968 (the
Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:156-1 et seq., as amended effective June
30, 1999, it was unlawful for any person to tap a
telephone line belonging to any other person or to
disclose any communication obtained. See State v.
Christy, 112 N.J. Super. 48, 53 (Law Div. 1970). The
Act, which was enacted in 1969, repealed this earlier
prohibition of all wiretapping (id.), and was modeled
after Title III of the Federal Omnibus Crime Control Act
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (codified as amended by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18
U.S.C. §2510 et seq.). State v. Diaz, 308 N.J. Super. 504,
509 (App. Div. 1998); State v. Fornino, 223 N.J. Super.
531, 543-44 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 570,
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 859, 109 S.Ct. 152 (1988); see also
State v. Lane, 279 N.J. Super. 209, 217 (App. Div), certif.
denied, 141 N.J. 94 (1995). Although wiretap laws are
designed to provide specially trained law enforcement
officers under judicial supervision with the tools
necessary to combat crime without unnecessarily
infringing upon the right of individual privacy, (see
generally Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 130, 98
S.Ct. 1717, 1719 (1978)), the Act protects the high
degree of privacy in telephone conversations. State v.
Lane, 279 N.J. Super. at 219. The State’s duty of
protecting the public must prevail when balanced against
the potential danger of unreasonable wiretapping. State
v. Sidoti, 120 N.J. Super. 208, 214 (App. Div. 1972).
Generally, the Act prohibits the interception of
conversations, except under certain exceptional circum-
stances. State v. Worthy, 141 N.J. 368, 376 (1995). Both
the Act and its federal counterpart generally provide that
telephone calls and other wire or oral communications
may not be “intercepted” except pursuant to a court
order. State v. Lane, 279 N.J. Super. at 217; State v.
Fornino, 223 N.J. Super. at 544.II. VALIDITY
The Act has been held to be constitutional. State v.
Dye, 60 N.J. 518, 535, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1090, 93
S.Ct. 699 (1972); State v. Braeunig, 122 N.J. Super. 319,
325 (App. Div. 1973); State v. Christy, 112 N.J. Super.
48, 61 (Law Div. 1970).