(because a cellular phone has no fixed location, wiretap
order which specified telephone number and the name
and address of the person to whom the cell phone was
listed, included the required information to the extent
practicable under the circumstances); see also State v.
Braeunig, 122 N.J. Super. 319, 325 (App. Div. 1973);
State v. Sidoti, 120 N.J. Super. 208, 212-13 (App. Div.
1972).
B. Limitations, Extensions and Renewals
- No order shall authorize an interception for a
period of time in excess of what is necessary under the
circumstances. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-12. Within statutory
limits, this determination rests in the reasonable
discretion of the judge. See State v. Dye, 60 N.J. 518, 527,
cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1090, 93 S.Ct. 699 (1972). The
order must require that interception begin and terminate
“as soon as practicable” and that it be conducted in such
a manner as to minimize or eliminate the interception of
communications not otherwise subject to interception
by making reasonable efforts, whenever possible, to
reduce the hours of interception authorized by the order.
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-12. The purpose of minimization is to
safeguard an individual’s right to privacy. State v.
Pemberthy, 224 N.J. Super. 280, 298 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 111 N.J. 633 (1988).
The initial authorization shall not exceed 20 days
and extensions or renewals may be granted for two
additional periods of not more than 10 days each.
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-12; see, e.g., State v. Bain, 212 N.J.
Super. 548, 551 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 107 N.J. 68
(1986). In cases involving racketeering, leader of
organized crime, or leader of narcotics trafficking
network, the order may authorize the interception for a
period not to exceed 30 days, without any limitation on
the number of extension or renewal orders, but which are
also limited to a period of 30 days, and provided,
however, such orders shall not exceed six months.
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-12g.
- Both extrinsic and intrinsic minimization of the
interception of non-pertinent information is necessary.
a. Extrinsic minimization is accomplished by simply
limiting the hours and total duration of the interception.
State v. Catania, 85 N.J. 418, 429 (1981); see also State
v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 414 (1981); cf., State v.
Pemberthy, 224 N.J. Super. at 298-99 (where the initial
order did not require specification of hours of
interception given the continuing nature of the
conspiracy under investigation).
b. Intrinsic minimization is accomplished by
terminating the interception of individual phone calls
within the authorized hours as it becomes apparent to the
monitors that the call is not relevant to the investigation.
State v. Catania, 85 N.J. at 429; see also State v. Burstein,
85 N.J. at 414. Subjective good faith is required, along
with objective reasonableness, based on the circum-
stances, in all minimization efforts. State v. Catania, 85
N.J. at 436, 444; see also State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. at 414.
However, the police are not subjected to the impossible
standard of terminating the interception of all non-
relevant phone calls; rather, what is required is that
reasonable efforts be made to minimize or eliminate the
interception of irrelevant calls. State v. Catania, 85 N.J.
at 433.The sufficiency of minimization efforts must be
judged on a case-by-case basis; the following is to be
considered in assessing the reasonableness of the
monitors’ minimization efforts: (i) the nature of certain
phone calls, which may render minimization difficult;
(ii) the scope of the enterprise under investigation; and
(iii) the reasonable expectations of the monitors, at that
stage of the conspiracy, as to the nature of the
conversation. Id. at 433-34; see also State v. Burstein, 85
N.J. at 415. For instance, in State v. Pemberthy, 224 N.J.
Super. at 299-300, the court found that the monitors had
exercised subjective good faith in their minimization
efforts, their efforts were objectively reasonable, such as
the use of spot monitoring and the necessity of
ascertaining the full scope of the conspiracy, and thus,
had fully complied with the requirements of Catania.- An extension or renewal of a wiretap order must
conform to the same procedures as those utilized in the
initial application to insure that constitutional
protections remain intact. State v. Murphy, 137 N.J.
Super. 404, 430 (Law Div. 1975), rev’d o.g., 148 N.J.
Super. 542 (App. Div. 1977). In State v. Gerardo, 234
N.J. Super. 614, 617 (Law Div. 1988), the defendant was
not entitled to suppress wiretap evidence, even though
there was a one or two-day lapse between expiration of the
order allowing the original wiretap and entry of the order
providing for an extension of the previous order. - The court may require progress reports. N.J.S.A.
2A:156A-12h. - Upon the request of the applicant, an order may
direct a provider of an electronic communication service
to provide assistance in the interception. N.J.S.A.
2A:156A-12h.