NJ Supreme Court Rules For Internet Privacy

dprovine writes "The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that ISPs can't release customer information without a warrant. The unanimous decision reads in part 'We now hold that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Article I ... of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers — just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies.'"

Precedence in US Vs Forrester

[eldavojohn]

I'm not a lawyer but I thought precedence was set for this in US Vs Forrester [arstechnica.com] where a $10 million drug operation had their e-mail, phone and IP address records obtained from their ISP without a warrant. They were guilty but not until the court case.

This happened just last year. How are they going to reconcile these two rulings?

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester

[dreamchaser]

Right now they are two different things. US vs Forrester was a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court and this recent ruling was the NJ State Supreme Court. If they come into conflict it will have to go to the US Supreme Court. Incidentally, the 9th Circuit is one of the most overturned appeals courts in recent years.

I am guessing this issue will one day wind up before the US Supreme Court. We know that Congress won't address the issue, so it will probably be left to the lawyers in black robes.

Grand jury is now required

[McCarr]

Comcast at least, won't now release subscriber information without a subpoena.This ruling requires that a grand jury must issue the subpoena not a municipal court. This raises the barrier quite a bit. The ruling is at:http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A-105-06%20State%20v%20Shirley%20Reid.pdf

Text of ruling

[Sarcileptic]

The text of the NJ court ruling is here: http://abajournal.com/files/A-105-06_State_v_Shirley_Reid.pdf [abajournal.com]

Re:Precedence in US Vs Forrester

[Ardeaem]

Incidentally, the 9th Circuit is one of the most overturned appeals courts in recent years.

God, this meme needs to die. The 9th circuit also has a very highest number of cases. When you look at the numbers as proportions, the 9th Circuit isn't out of line.

Also interesting for what the court did *not* do

[BendingSpoons]

At least from my perspective. New Jersey courts are particularly active in holding that our State Constitution offers more protection than the federal constitution. (See State v. Nyhammer, 396 NJ Super 72, for a typically bizarre reading of the Fifth Amendment.*)

In this case, an appellate court had previously held that the New Jersey state constitution grants a broad-based right to "informational privacy." Some state constitutions explicitly grant a right to privacy; NJ doesn't, but the Court reads our constitution as having one anyway. And then the appellate court expanded this judicially-granted right to include "informational privacy." The NJ Supreme Court rejected this expansion, although they said that they might change their minds if technology progresses to the point where IP addresses are more freely available.

All in all, I'm happy they ditched the Appellate Division's interpretation. I liked the idea of informational privacy, but I didn't like it coming through the courts.

*In that case, police officers read Nyhammer his Miranda rights. Nyhammer waived his rights, signed the Miranda card, and confessed to molesting an 11-year old girl. The appellate court held that Nyhammer's fifth amendment rights were violated; although he waived his rights, he didn't know at the time that he was a suspect. Therefore, his waiver wasn't really knowing and voluntary, and the court overturned his conviction. Talk about an expansive reading of a right against self-incrimination.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion