On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 07-09-1606.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Grall and LeWinn.
Defendant Dottie S. Ates was indicted and charged with conspiring to hinder apprehension of prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:5- 2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(4); hindering apprehension or prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(4); obstruction of the administration of the law, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1; and witness tampering by attempting to induce others to give false testimony, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5a. Following the denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment on jurisdictional grounds, defendant was admitted to the pre-trial intervention program (PTI) and permitted to participate in the program from her home State.
Defendant appeals and raises these issues:
I. THE COURT ERRED BY ISSUING A WARRANT FOR ELECTRONIC WIRETAP SURVEILLANCE ON TARGETS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
II. THE SUCCEEDING WIRETAPS MUST ALSO BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THEY WERE TAINTED BY THE EARLIER ILLEGALLY INTERCEPTED CONVERSATIONS.
III. ALL EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED FOR LACK OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO RULE BASED ON THE DEFENDANT'S POINT OF ARGUMENT IN ITS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
IV. DEFENDANT'S 4TH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED BY THE COURT ALLOWING THE STATE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH EXTRA-JURISDICTIONAL WIRETAPS.
V. DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS DENIED WHEN [THE] STATE FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT COMMITTED ANY OF THE ALLEGED ACTS OF HINDERING APPREHENSION [OR] PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. (NOT RAISED BELOW).
We decline to consider the issues raised in Points I, II, and IV, because there is nothing in the record provided to us on appeal indicating defendant raised these issues in the trial court. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973).
We reject the arguments presented in Points III and V substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Carroll in his oral decision of June 28, 2010. Defendant claims this State lacks jurisdiction because her ...