State v. Worthy’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Reid (2008), State v. Diaz (1998)
4 district · 23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on State v. Novembrino · State v. Mollica · State v. Sugar · State v. Cerbo · State v. MacRi
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person acting at the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; provided, however, that no such interception shall be made unless the Attorney General or his designee or a county prosecutor within kis authority determines that there exists a reasonable suspicion that evidence of cñminal conduct will be derived from such interception[.~\ [L. 1993, c. 29, § 3 (emphasis added).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. K.W. · State v. Diaz“The Legislature, as a result, clarified and strengthened the suppression remedy of section 21 as follows: “If the motion is granted, the entire contents of all intercepted wire or oral communications obtained during or after any interception which is determined to be in violation of this act ..., or evidence derived therefrom, shall not be received in evidence in the trial, hearing or proceeding.” L. 1975, c. 131, § 21 (underlined words indicate 1975 additions). A plain and strict reading of the amended statute supports the proposition that all evidence derived from the illegal interception — the conversations recorded by that interception, conversations recorded after the unlawful interception, and other evidence “derived” from the illegal interception — shall be excluded. [Id. at 387, 661 A.2d 1244 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Courts have acknowledged that the conditions for authorization of consensual wiretaps are not as strict as those applicable to non-consensual wiretaps, and have understood that the Legislature did not intend to restrict the activities of law enforcement “to any greater degree than by the one condition it imposed.” State v. Schultz, 176 N.J.Super. 65, 68 , 422 A.2d 105 (App.Div.1980). Accord State v. Parisi, 181 N.J.Super. 117, 120 , 436 A.2d 948 (App.Div.1981); State v. Bisaccia, 251 N.J.Super. 508, 512 , 598 A.2d 944 (Law Div.1991). [Id. at 381, 661 A.2d 1244 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.