E536 ndex 1. Recent cases: GPS tracking device by police not barred. 2. NJ had jurisdiction for criminal spam attack on NJ business 3. OPRA can also require electronically stored data. 4. Non-running Community events 5. Fun Upcoming Charity Running Races
NJ LAWS EMAIL NEWSLETTER E536
Kenneth Vercammen, Attorney at Law
March 6, 2018
1. Recent cases: GPS tracking device by police not barred.
2. NJ had jurisdiction for criminal spam attack on NJ business
3. OPRA can also require electronically stored data.
4. Non-running Community events
5. Fun Upcoming Charity Running Races
1. GPS tracking device by police not barred State v McDuffie 450 NJ Super. 554 (App. Div. 2017).
The court examined defendants' attack on the State's exercised privilege, refraining from disclosing information regarding details related to a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device used to prove their involvement in two burglaries. The court rejected defendants' constitutional attacks and upheld the privilege granted by N.J.R.E. 516 and N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-28, defining the guidelines reviewed when weighing disclosure in light of the asserted privilege.
These include: (1) whether defendant demonstrates a particularized need for disclosure related to advance a stated defense; (2) whether the opportunity to cross-examine the officer, asserting non-disclosure based on privilege, satisfies a defendant's need to challenge the credibility of the testifying witness; (3) whether law enforcement provided required corroborating evidence extrinsic to the GPS, to protect a defendant's rights of confrontation and fair trial; and (4) whether a defendant has the opportunity to provide expert testimony to attack the evidence without disclosure of the requested information. Docket A-3634-14T3
2. NJ had jurisdiction for criminal spam attack on NJ business. State v Tringali 451 NJ Super. 18 (App. Div. 2017).
The State alleged that, acting in Florida, defendant paid an accomplice to launch spam attacks on a website that was integral to a New Jersey internet-based business, for the purpose of harming the business owner.
The Appellate Division reversed an order dismissing the indictment charging defendant with the offenses of disrupting or impairing computer services, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-25(b), and impersonating another for the purpose of obtaining a benefit or depriving another of a benefit, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17(a)(1). As to both offenses, the harmful result to the victim is an "element" of the offense, within the meaning of the territorial jurisdiction statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1) and -3(g).
Because the prosecutor produced some evidence that the New Jersey victims suffered harm in this State, which was an element of each computer crime statute, New Jersey has territorial jurisdiction to prosecute defendant for those offenses. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing those counts of the indictment for lack of territorial jurisdiction. A-1262-15T1
3. OPRA can also require electronically stored data. Paff v. Galloway Township 229 NJ 340 (2017).
The Appellate Division's overly constrictive reading of OPRA cannot be squared with the OPRA's objectives or statutory language. OPRA recognizes that government records will constitute not only paper documents, but also information electronically stored.
The fields of information covering "sender," "recipient," "date," and "subject" in the emails sent by the Galloway Township Chief of Police and Clerk over a two-week period are government records under OPRA.
March 16, 2018 Highland Park Office of Aging at 11am Wills & Estates Free program