I. Facts showing that other normal investigative
procedures were tried but failed or reasonably appeared
to be unlikely to succeed if tried or too dangerous to
employ. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9c(6). A valid affidavit does
not have to recite compelling and truly unique
circumstances to satisfy this requirement. In State v.
Tanchalk, 177 N.J. Super. 551, 555 (App. Div. 1981),
the wiretap order was issued on the bare conclusory
statements that normal investigative procedures would
not have been effective in detecting the illegal gambling
activity and may have been impossible to conduct. In
State v. Braeunig, 122 N.J. Super. at 326, the affidavit did
not explicitly relate that other investigative techniques
had actually been utilized, but rather, reflected bare
conclusions that electronic surveillance was necessary;
the requirement of the statute was deemed satisfied
because spot surveillances, toll-call analysis or personal
interviews, were unlikely to succeed in revealing the
substance of gambling communications or might have
endangered the investigator. See also State v. Dye, 60 N.J.
at 526;
J. If the application is for a renewal or extension of the
order, a statement is required demonstrating the results
obtained so far or a reasonable explanation of the failure
to obtain such results. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9d; and
K. Facts concerning previous applications regarding
similar persons or places. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9e.
XII. GROUNDS NECESSARY FOR THE
AUTHORIZATION OF AN ORDER (N.J.S.A.
2A:156A-10)
The judge may enter an ex parte order authorizing the
interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication
if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted
by the applicant that there is probable cause to believe
that the criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9 has been
satisfied. See N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-10; see, e.g., State v.
Tanchalk, 177 N.J. Super. 551, 555-56 (App. Div.
1981); State v. Benevento, 138 N.J. Super. 211, 214 (App.
Div. 1975). In State v. Pemberthy, 224 N.J. Super. 280,
296-98 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 633 (1988),
probable cause was supplied where the affidavit
presented to the issuing judge demonstrated that normal
investigative techniques had been tried during the
investigation, and that these techniques, as well as
alternate techniques, had failed. The determination of
probable cause is based on the totality of the
circumstances as contained in the supporting affidavit,
the background information provided by the affiant, and
their specialized experience. State v. Murphy, 137 N.J.
Super. 404, 416 (Law Div. 1975), rev’d o.g., 148 N.J.
Super. 542 (1977).XIII. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR PUBLIC
FACILITIES OR FACILITIES OF PERSONS
ENTITLED TO PRIVILEGED COMMUNICA-
TIONS (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-11)
A. If the facilities from which a wire communication is to
be intercepted are public, or are used by a licensed
physician, a practicing psychologist, an attorney-at-law,
a practicing clergy person, a newspaper person, or
primarily for habitation by a husband and wife, no order
shall issue, unless the court finds, in addition to the
matters required in N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-9 and N.J.S.A.
2A:156A-10, a “special need,” as defined in N.J.S.A.
2A:156A-11, is shown. For the requirements of “special
need,” see N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-11; State v. Dye, 60 N.J.
518, 526, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1090, 93 S.Ct. 699
(1972); State v. Tanchalk, 177 N.J. Super. 551, 555
(App. Div. 1981); State v. Benevento, 138 N.J. Super.
211, 214 (App. Div. 1975); State v. Sidoti, 116 N.J.
Super. 70, 78-80 (Law Div. 1971), rev’d o.g., 120 N.J.
Super. 208, 211-12 (App. Div. 1972).B. The requirement of showing a “special need” for a
wiretap on public telephones must be considered
separately in determining the admissibility of evidence
obtained by an authorized wiretap. State v. Sidoti, 116
N.J. Super. at 211-12.XIV. THE ORDER AUTHORIZING INTER-
CEPTION, ITS CONTENTS, LIMITATIONS,
EXTENSIONS AND RENEWALS, PROGRESS
REPORTS, AND ASSISTANCE BY PROVIDER
OF WIRE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION
SERVICE (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-12)
A. ContentsEach order shall state the authorization of the judge,
the identity or a description of the person, if known,
whose communications are to be intercepted, the
character and location of the facilities that will be
intercepted, the type of communications to be
intercepted as it relates to the particular offense, the
identity of the officers executing the order and their
authorization, and the period of time during which the
interception is authorized. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-12a to f;
see, e.g., State v. Tango, 287 N.J. Super. 416, 420-21
(App. Div. 1996), certif. denied, 144 N.J. 585 (1996)