cdTOCtest

XXV. COST REIMBURSEMENT (N.J.S.A.

2A:156A-31)

A law enforcement agency obtaining the contents of
communications, records, or other information under
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-28, 2A:156A-29, or 2A:156A-30,
shall reimburse the person or provider for costs and which
have been directly incurred for searching, assembling,
reproducing, and otherwise providing information, as
well as the costs due to the necessary disruption of normal
operations of any electronic communication or remote
computing service in which the information may be
stored. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-31a. The amount of
reimbursement can be mutually agreed upon by the law
enforcement agency and the service provider, and in the
absence of an agreement, by the court. N.J.S.A.
2A:156A-31b. This section does not apply to records or
other information maintained by a provider of wire or
electronic communication service which relates to
telephone toll records and telephone listings obtained
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-29, unless the court
determines that the required information is voluminous
or causes an undue burden on the provider. N.J.S.A.
2A:156A-31c.

XXVI. CIVIL ACTION AND DAMAGES

(N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-32)

Except as provided in N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-29d, any
service provider, subscriber, or customer, aggrieved by
any violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-27 to 30, may recover,
in a civil action, from the person or entity which
knowingly or purposefully engaged in the conduct
constituting the violation. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-32a.
Appropriate relief may include the following:

1. Preliminary and other equitable or declaratory
   relief;


2. Actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any
   profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but
   in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less
   than $1,000; and


3. Attorney fees and litigation costs. N.J.S.A.
   2A:156A-32b, c.

A civil action under this section may not be
commenced later than two years after the date upon
which the claimant first discovered or had a reasonable
opportunity to discover the violation. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-
32d.

However, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-33, it shall

be a complete defense to any civil or criminal action

brought pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-27 to 30 and

2A:156A-32, that the person made a good faith reliance

on the following:

1. A court warrant or order, legislative authorization,
   or a statutory authorization;


2. A request of an investigative or law enforcement
   officer under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-13; or


3. A good faith determination that N.J.S.A.
   2A:156A-4 permitted the conduct which is the subject
   of the complaint.

XXVII. THE FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT

A. History-Purpose

Following the United States Supreme Court

decisions in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct.

507 (1967) and Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S.Ct.

1873 (1967), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

Streets Act of 1968 (codified as amended by the

Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18

U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., and also known as the Federal

Wiretap Act) was passed, thereby creating a limited

system of wire surveillance and electronic eavesdropping

within the framework of the Fourth Amendment and the

guidelines of Katz and Berger. State v. Minter, 116 N.J.

269, 274-75 (1989). The Federal Wiretap Act applies

to any interception of a telephone call, regardless of

whether parallel state legislation has been enacted. State

v. Fornino, 223 N.J. Super. 531, 543 (App. Div.), certif.

denied, 111 N.J. 570, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 859, 109

S.Ct. 152 (1988) (citing United States v. Smith, 726 F.2d

852, 860-61 (1st Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Torres v.

United States, 469 U.S. 841, 105 S.Ct. 143 (1984)); see

also State v. Minter, 116 N.J. at 274 (“Federal wiretap law

is paramount; it binds federal and state officials alike,

setting a threshold that may not be lowered”).

Nonetheless, the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic

Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq., was

modeled after the Federal Wiretap Act, and is in some

respects, more restrictive than the federal legislation.

State v. Fornino, 223 N.J. Super. at 544.

B. Construction

In United States v. New York Telephone, 434 U.S. 159,

165-68, 98 S.Ct. 364, 369-70 (1977), the United States

Supreme Court held that pen registers, which are