NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ – The Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division issued a landmark decision December 4, finding that “tower dump” warrants—broad requests for cellphone data from all devices near a crime scene—constitute searches under the Fourth Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution. However, the panel affirmed a trial court’s decision denying suppression of evidence against two defendants because investigators would have inevitably discovered their identities through lawful means.
The ruling came in the case of State v. Phillip D. Bryant and James Hunter, who, along with a third suspect, Wayne Smith, were charged in a violent home invasion that included robbery and sexual assault. Prosecutors said the men broke into a family’s home, robbed them, and that one of the intruders sexually assaulted a woman inside. Investigators used data obtained from nearby cell towers to identify the suspects, leading to a 24-count indictment that included first-degree robbery and aggravated sexual assault.
Attorneys for Bryant and Hunter argued that the cell tower warrants were unconstitutional because they swept up data from thousands of unrelated cellphone users. The panel, led by Presiding Judge Gilson and joined by Judges Firko and Perez Friscia, agreed that the warrants lacked sufficient particularity, violating both federal and state constitutional protections.
Despite that finding, the court declined to exclude the evidence. It held that investigators would have identified the defendants through other investigative methods, invoking the “inevitable discovery” doctrine.
The decision provides one of New Jersey’s clearest frameworks for how law enforcement may seek cell tower data in future investigations. The court emphasized that such warrants must be supported by probable cause, narrowly tailored to relevant time frames and locations, and handled in a way that protects the privacy of individuals unconnected to the crime.
The opinion, approved for publication, marks a significant moment in the evolving balance between digital privacy rights and police investigative tools in the state.
