Leonard, Halpern and Lynch. The opinion of the court was delivered by Halpern, J.A.D.
[120 NJSuper Page 210] By leave granted, the State appeals from an order suppressing all the evidence seized resulting from two wiretap orders issued by the Essex County Assignment Judge. The relevant facts, the legislative history
of the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq.), and the reasons for its action are set forth in the court's opinion (116 N.J. Super. 70) and will not be repeated herein. Since the "Sidoti" wiretap, which followed the "Mitarotonda" wiretap in point of time, was held invalid because of the alleged infirmities in the Mitarotonda wiretap, we will deal primarily with the latter.
Preliminarily, we grant respondents' motion and strike from appellant's appendix the affidavit of James T. Palma dated February 11, 1972. This affidavit was not part of the record below and, therefore, is not properly before us. Wallach v. Williams , 52 N.J. 504, 505 (1968).
In addition to the reasons given by the court for suppressing the evidence seized, respondents contend N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq. , is unconstitutional on its face, and that the Mitarotonda and Sidoti wiretaps were illegal because the prosecutor failed to apply personally for the orders but authorized named detectives in his office to do so. These contentions are without merit. See State v. Dye , 60 N.J. 518 (1972).
The court suppressed the evidence seized because, as we understand the opinion, it found the Mitarotonda wiretap failed to show a "special need" for a wiretap on public telephones, as required by N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-11, of the breadth, duration and undifferentiated scope authorized by the court in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Combining the elements of "special need" with the scope and breadth of the authorized tap is not warranted. Each must be considered separately in light of the existing circumstances.
We are in accord with the court's views that the New Jersey Legislature, in adopting N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq. , was sensitive to the threat to individual privacy inherent in any form of wiretapping, and in particular when a public telephone was involved. Section 11 of the statute expresses this concern by requiring the court to determine
that an undefined "special need" exists to intercept wire communications over public telephones. Such special need to be in addition to the standards fixed in Section 10.
We find that the proofs presented on the application for the Mitarotonda wiretap showed ample probable cause for belief that a "special need" existed to issue the order. It must be emphasized that the wiretap dealt with a bookmaking operation. We have long recognized that such operations are conducted by shrewd and ingenious individuals who constantly devise new techniques to avoid detection. State v. Kuznitz , 36 N.J. Super. 521, 530 (App. Div. 1955), certif. den. 20 N.J. 136 (1955). It is reasonably inferable that such individuals are fully acquainted with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq. , and in particular with the mandate that "special need" must be shown when public telephones are involved. Therefore, it does not strain the imagination to realize that bookmakers, whether or not part of organized gambling, would use public telephones to conduct their operations. In the process, they will utilize every conceivable ploy to avoid detection by the police whose mode of operation by surveillance, wiretapping and informers are well known to them. Detection by the police of bookmaking operations becomes more difficult with the passage of time. All this is evident in the proofs presented on the application for the Mitarotonda wiretap, a synopsis of which indicates that (a) information was received by the police from a reliable informant that Mitarotonda was utilizing two public telephones in booths located on public streets for bookmaking purposes; (b) the information was verified by surveilling the area over a four day period during which time the police observed Mitarotonda's actions which bore the well-known earmarks of a bookmaking operation; (c) the police observed the transfer of cash and slips of paper between Mitarotonda and unknown persons, and heard the placing of horse and lottery bets; (d) the impossibility of continuing surveillance in the area without being detected; and (e) the impracticality of executing a
search warrant at the telephone booths. Under such circumstances, we conclude that probable cause to believe that a "special need" existed for the issuance of the wiretap order had been shown because usual investigative methods would be unlikely to succeed. See Approved Draft, 1971, of the A.B.A. Project, etc., Standards Relating to Electronic Surveillance , § 5.10, and commentary thereon.
We turn to respondents' contention and the court's determination that the order permitting the Mitarotonda wiretap was too broad and unrestricted. The questioned portion of the order provided that the ...