# State v. Catania

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · March 16, 1981 · 85 N.J. 418

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698565

## Case

- **Full name:** State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nicholas Catania, Defendant-Appellant; State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Louis Gatto, Jr., Defendant-Appellant; State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank P. Elia, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** March 16, 1981
- **Citations:** 85 N.J. 418; 427 A.2d 537; 1981 N.J. LEXIS 1594
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Pashman
- **Judges:** Wilentz, Pashman
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by State v. Purnell, 161 N.J. 44 (1999).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698565

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that rule announced excluding the results of a wiretap because of improper minimization should not be applied retroactively because to reopen cases, even on a limited basis, for detailed hearings on the reasonableness of the interception of each phone call during each …
- stating that "spot monitoring is highly persuasive evidence of a good-faith intention on the part of the monitors to minimize"
- finding specific legislative direction in N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-21 for suppression of all intercepted communications in the event of a minimization violation
- finding retroactive application unwarranted because police had justifiably relied upon an old practice sanctioned by rule and statute

## Opinion text

PASHMAN, J.,
concurring and dissenting in part.
For the reasons I have stated previously in State v. Carpen-tieri, 82 N.J. 546, 556 (1980) (Pashman, J., dissenting), and State v. Howery, 80 N.J. 563, 575 (Pashman, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 994 , 100 S.Ct. 527 , 62 L.Ed.2d 424 (1979), I believe that the minimization standards established today in this case should be applied retroactively to cases pending direct review in our courts. I agree with the majority, however, that *449 these standards were not violated by the police conduct in this case. Accordingly, I vote with the majority to affirm the convictions of these defendants.
PASHMAN, J., concurring in the result.
For affirmance —Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, and POLLOCK — 7.
For reversal —None.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698565. Public record. Not legal advice.