Thank you so much for using JustAnswer.com. I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered. PLEASE use REPLY to EXPERT if you would like more information or if you feel something was not included in your answer.
Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO XXXXX CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
YOU TOOK AN ASSUMPTION NOT IMPLIED, THAT THE WRITER OF THE EMAIL OR WEBMAIL WOULD BY A SUSPECT AND NOT A WITNESS.
IN THIS CASE I AM TALKING ABOUT A WITNESS, THAT CONTACTED THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE THROUGH THEIR OWN WEBSITE- WEBMAIL-- TO GIVE THEM INFORMATION ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS-- AS IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS, WHERE IN NJ YOU ARE ALLOWED TO IT ANONOMYOUSLY.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THEY ARENT ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW TO CONTACT THE INTERNET SERIVE PROVIDER AND OBTAIN THE ISP INFORMATION, WITH A WARRANT OR grand jury subpoena, CORRECT?
ALSI IM NOT SURE YOU ARE AWARE THAT BACK IN 2008 THE SUPREME COURT OF NJ RULED UNAMINOUSLY, THAT WARRANTS ARE NOT OK, YOU NEED A GRAND JURY grand jury subpoena TO AS LAW ENFORECEMENT TO OBTAIN THE ISP INFO
PLEASE GIVE ME MORE FEEDBACK, IN CASE I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING,...
OK,.... so this is what happened to me back in the spring/summer of 2009. i wrote on the webmail section of the presecutors office information- complaints, if you will, concerning \one officer in the prosecutors office, and another actual townh prosecutor,...... after doing so,...... about a week later a person with the rank of captain at the county prosectors office and another dectective, showed up at my front door,..... asking for my father,...... i asked why,.. they said someone was writing emails from here to them,.. i asked how o you know that,.. they said they got the info from cablevision,...... i said my fathers been dead since 2002, i wrote the emails, abnd invited them inside to sit down and talk about it,.....
i later found out this was an ilegal act by them,.. to get that isp info to track me down, because i told them about things that were ilegal officers i know did,.....
and i did not put my name or adrswess or phone number in the boxes in the webmail-- that all said optional to submit,.. so it submittecd it anomobnouisy
just so we are clear they violated me righs here,.. our rights,
so i recently now last week or so,.. put in an ionternal affairs complaint about what happened with an asisstant monmouth county prosecutor,... how took the complaint over the phone, amd by law must imjnvestigate it impartially and tell me what he says,
am i ok so far?
you lreft before it was over, ad it was really close
EXCUSE ME,BUT AS TOP YOUR FIRST SENTENCE, THE RATING SYSTEM DOES INCLUDE UNSATISFACTORY RESPONCE,, SO WHAT THEY HEWCK ARE TYOU ASKING ME TO DO?? GIVE UP MY CONTRACTED RIGHT TO SAY I DID NT LIKE THE ANSWER------ THE SUPREME COURT OF NJ CECALRED IN 2008 , IN STATE V READ YOU CAN NOT HAVE AJUDGE SING A WARRANT FOR THIS STUFF, IT MUST BE A GRAND JURY,... SO THE GUY WAS WRONG, IT WAS AN UNSATIDIFACTORY ANSWER,-----
YTOU ARE WRONG,, ON CITING THE FEDERAL STUFF,.. STATES SUOPERCEED FEDERAL IN STATE COURT,.. THIS IS BNOT A FEDERAL ISSUE,......
FEDERAL LAW ONLY APPLIES INTHIS TYPE OF THING TO FEDERAL CASES,
A PERSON AMING AN ANONOMYOUSE INTENRAL AFFAIRS COMNPLIANT IS ONLY SUBJEC TO STATE LAW,
I beg to differ, based on my years as a lawyer, as to federal law. State law does not supercede federal law just because something is in state court. If that were true, the United States Constitution would not apply to state courts -- which is simply not in the least bit true.Your First Amendment rights apply and are applicable in proceeding heard in state courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 similarly applies to matters in state courts. Sometimes a state judge may do the wrong thing and ignore such laws, but that does not make it right or legal. The part of the US Constitution called the Commerce Clause is the key to this supremacy of federal law, even in state court.What may be confusing is that states can add more protection to the federal law unless the Federal Law says they can't. This is known, in legal parlance as "preemption."In this case, the Federal law governs, unless a state law gives more protection. As it happens, New Jersey has not enacted any additional protections and the federal law allows the police to seek emails older than 180 days without subpoena or other court order.I am sorry the law is not what you hoped it would be -- but I imagine you came to us looking for truthful and accurate legal information presented with integrity. That is what I presented. I hope you will recognize the truth matters to us and to most users, as a legal information web site that simply provides happy answers rather than true answers would be worthless.Thanks for contacting us. If any of this legal information requires further clarification, please post it the next text box.I wish you every success in resolving this matter.
ESCUSE ME, BUT AGAIN TO YOUR FIRST SENTENCE, PEOPLE IN NJ WOULD BE ALLOWED TO JURY TRIALS FORE THINGS AS A LIITLE AS DUI,.. THEY CARE NOIT,.. YOU KNOW WHY,, CAUSE STATE LAW SUPECEEDS FEDERAL LAW IN THIS STUFF,.....
BUT YOU ARE GETTING OFF TOPIC HERE
I AM NOT TALKING ABNOUT FIRST AMENDMENTS RIGHTYS,.. IF ANYTHING IRTS THE 4TH AMENDMENT
BUT , LET ME GET TGHIS CLEAR, IF THE SUPREME COURT OF NJ RULES THAT NO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OPERATING IN THE STATE OF NJ CAN LEGALY OBTAIN ISP INFORMATION UNLESS THEY HAVE A GRADE JURY SAYING THEY CAN
THAT LAW ENFOECEMENT IS ALLOWED TO BLOW THAT OFF, AND GET IT ANHYWAY,.. JUST TO FIND OUT WHO WROTE THEM COMPLAINTS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF HARASSING THE WUITNESS?
THIS IS WHAY YOU ARE SAYING?
COMPLETLY UNREPSONSIVE THE NJSTAE LAW, KEEPS GOING FEDERAL
The issue was preemption. And the examples provided helped show how preemption works. Nonetheless, let me give one more attempt to assist with the information you seek.I believe you are referring to State v. Reid, a 1993 case you can read here. http://www.javerbaumwurgaft.com/documents/State_v_Reid%5B1%5D.pdfThis case is only about ISP subscriber records -- not about access to emails. And the issue arises, in part, under the fourth amendment to the US constitution' exclusionary rule (as applied through a parallel part of the NJ Constitution) -- which is about whether evidence can be used against a defendant if it is illegally seized. Please read the case at the link above, if you don't believe me.
The court did not say the police could not obtain the information, just that it could not be used as the basis of the prosecution. You asked if the police could get it -- not if a prosecutor could use it at trial. I provided the correct information -- as the case you reference is only about use of subscriber information at trial by the prosecution -- not about the ways police get access to email. These distinctions that may seem like hair-splitting to non-lawyers are, in fact, the core of legal reasoning so things are properly categorized and the right analogy is used for the right phenomenon. To further explain with concrete examples: Other laws make it illegal, for instance, to intrude on a phone call (the Safe Streets Act, for instance) without a court order/subpoena. The actual act of tapping a phone without court order is illegal.But under the Reed case, there is no issue about whether obtaining the information is itself illegal (a crime, as phone-tapping is). It is simply a matter of whether or not the ISP subscriber records are admissible as evidence in a criminal trial.Unless there is a criminal trial in which a prosecutor attempts to use the type of subscriber information in Reed, the Reed case is simply irrelevant.You asked if the police could get email records without a subpoena or other court order. I let you know how they could, and not break the law. You didn't ask if what they found could be arguably excluded from a criminal trial -- only if they could legally get it just by asking for it.I hope you will recognize that you have been provided true and accurate information. Perhaps it did not support the concept you had in mind, but it is factual and provided with integrity -- and while one is free to reject it for any reason or no reason at all, I do hope you will now see that the information is accurate and responds directly to what was asked.I wish you all the best in this matter.
DID YOU READ WHAT I WROTE, IM NOT TALKING ABNOUT ACESS TO EMAILS, I AM TALKING SPECIALLY ABOUT THE ISP INFORMATION
AGAINJ YOU ARE GOING TO FEDERAL LAW, NOT NJ LAW, THE FIRST LINE CIN MY QWUESTION TO JUSTANSWER WAS ABOUT NJ LAW
SO, AGAIN,... YES OR NO ANSWER
THIS ISALL IM A LOOKING FOR , NOT A DIATRIBE ABOUT POLICY ISSURES
A SIMPLE YES OR NO
IF , UNDER THE CURRENT LONG TIME ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NJ GUIDLINES AND CORRESPONDING STATE LAW AS TO ANOMOMYOUS MJ INTYERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINJTYS, COMBLINED WITH THE NJ SUPRE COYURT RULIN G IN STATE V REID
YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO GO TO AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER, FIND OUT WHO MADE THE COMPLAINTS, GO TO THEIR RESIDENCE, AND HARASS THE COMP[LAINANT?
SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWEWR IS REQUIRED HERE
NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION,.. YES OPR NO SIR,,
IM SORRY, I PAID FOR A YES OR NO ANSWER, NOIT A DIATRIBE FOR YOU
BUT I GUESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE MONMOUTH COUNTY NJ PROSECUTORS OFFICE IS GOING TO SAY THAT THEY CAN FIND OUT WHO THE HELL IS TELLING THEM WHAT OFFICERS ON THEIR FORC E WAS DEALING DRUGS,.. AND HARASS THE PERSON TELLING THEM THE INFO,. LEGALLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUST SAYING F-IT,.. WE DIONT WORK FORT THE PEOPLE,.. LETS JUST HARASS WITNESSES TO CEIMES TILL THEY GO AWAY OR DO SOMETHING ILEGAL,.. THEN WE GOT THEM
IS THIS THE COUNTRY YOU WANT TO LIV E IN?
WOULDNT IT JUST BE EASIER TO FOLLOW THE INTENTIONS OF THE TAXPAYERS, ARE FIRE POLICE OFFICERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS THAT ARE INTENTIOBNAL TRYING TO SCREW US OVER?
INTERN AL AFFAIRS COMP[LAINTS ARE STATE LAW,.. THIS WAS IN ANJOTHEF THREAD I HAD ON HERE,.. THERE IS NO LACK OF STATE LAW
IF I WANT TO REMAIUN ANONOMYOUS, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO
YOUR ANSWER IS UNRESPONISIVCE
YOU CAN SA IT WAS WRONG FOR STEPHEN KOBNDROP TO BE A COACAINE DELEAER AND A COCAIN PUSHER ON STOCKETON CAMPUS, YOU CAN SAY IS WAS OK HE DID IT,.. BUT WHAT YOU CAN NOT DO IS NOT REPLY TO ME, AND WHAT YOUCANT DO IS COME AFTER ME FORE TELLING THE TRUTH
AND AS WE AL.,L KNOW, THERE IS NO WAY A CAPTAIN FROM THE MONMOUTH COUTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE WEN TO A GRAND JURY AND ASKED TO GET MY ISP INFORMATION IN ORDER TO GO AFTER A POLTICAL CONNECTED ODDICER,.. SO THEY DOD IT ILLEGALY,...
THEY NEVER GOT A a subpoena. ,.. WHAT PROBABLE CAUSE COULD THEIR HAVE BEEN,........ THEIR INTENT WAS TO HSARASS ME OVER WHAT I WRTE THEM CONCERNIONG SGT STEPKEN KONDROP OF THE MONMOUTH COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE BEING A POT AND COCAINE DEALER ON THE STOCKTON STATE COLLEGE CAMPUS
THE DIDNT GO TO A GRAND JURY,.. THEY ASK FOR AND GOT THE IUSP INMFDORMATION IULEGALLY
SO NOW I HAVE THE INTERAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINT INTO Richard E. Incremona First Assistant Prosecutor
AND I AM AWAITING MY LAWFUL RESPONSE,.....
NO I DID NOT ASK IF THEY COULD GET A SUBPENA OR NOT,... LEGALY OR IULEGALY,.. I ASKED IF THEY COULD LEGALY OBATIAN THE ISP INFORMATION,...YOU MIS READ MY QUESTYION SIR
THEY WEN TO THE CABLE COMPANY AND OBTAINED THE INFORMATIO B WITHOUT A SUBPEANA,.. MY QUESTIO IS CAN THAT HAVE HAP;PENED LEGALL;Y
YOU ARE MISREADING MY QUESYTION
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).