Decided: January 25, 1973.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
MARIO MOLINARO, ROCCO CICCHETTI, PETER JOSEPH VERDICCHIO, EMANUEL MONTALBANO, AND MICHAEL MAURIELLO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Carton, Mintz and Crahay.
[122 NJSuper Page 182]
We granted leave to the State to appeal from an interlocutory order 117 N.J. Super. 276, granting defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained through the interception of telephonic communications by the New Jersey State Police under the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Survelliance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq. The telephonic interceptions were made pursuant to appropriate orders authorizing same.
In essence the trial judge found that the State violated the mandate of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-12(f), which provides that interceptions be conducted in such a manner as to minimize or eliminate the interception of such communications not otherwise subject to interception under this act. Consequently, the trial judge held that all incriminating conversations should be suppressed. Subsequent to that determination our Supreme Court dealt with the precise issue in State v. Dye , 60 N.J. 518 (1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 1090, 93 S. Ct. 699, 34 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1972).
In Dye the court alluded to the instant case, noting that it was under review, and that while it would not follow any
[122 NJSuper Page 183]
portion of it which conflicts with its holding, it reserved consideration thereof until faced with the appeal to that court.
We have carefully reviewed Dye , and conclude that it is dispositive of the issue before us.