New Jersey Section 2C:33-21 – Interception or use of official communications.

Understanding New Jersey’s Law on Intercepting Official Communications

New Jersey has a law that prohibits the interception or use of official communications, found in Section 2C:33-21 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice. This law makes it a crime to intercept messages or transmissions on police, fire, or emergency medical communications systems. Let’s break down what this law covers, penalties for violating it, and potential defenses.

What Does the Law Prohibit?

The key provisions of Section 2C:33-21 are:

• It is illegal to intercept any message or transmission made on police, fire, or emergency medical communications systems. This includes things like police radio channels, fire department radios, and ambulance dispatch systems.
• It is also illegal to intentionally use or disclose the contents of intercepted communications from these systems.
• The law applies to communications at the federal, state, and local levels. So intercepting FBI, State Police, or local town police communications would all violate the statute.
• The law also bans possession of a device that facilitates interception or use of official communications if there is intent to use it illegally.

What Are the Penalties?

Violating Section 2C:33-21 is a crime of the fourth degree under New Jersey law. This makes it a more serious offense than a disorderly persons offense.

The potential penalties for a fourth degree crime include:

• Up to 18 months in prison
• Fines up to $10,000
• Probation up to 5 years

Judges have discretion in sentencing based on the specific circumstances of the case. But intercepting official communications clearly carries stiff potential penalties in New Jersey.

When Can Someone Be Charged?

There are two main ways people can face charges under this statute:

1. Intentionally Intercepting Communications

This could involve things like:

• Using a police scanner to listen to law enforcement radio channels
• Hacking into emergency communications networks
• Intercepting radio signals with technical devices

Simply listening to a normal police scanner may not be enough. The state would need to prove intent to intercept specific communications illegally.

2. Disclosing Intercepted Communications

If someone receives or discovers communications covered by the law, disclosing them to others can also lead to charges.

This prevents people from sharing intercepted police, fire, or medical communications even if they did not make the initial interception.

Are There Any Defenses?

There are some potential defenses to charges under Section 2C:33-21:

• No intent: The state must prove you intentionally intercepted or disclosed official communications. If it was an accident, that could rebut charges.
• First Amendment: The law cannot ban intercepting communications for legitimate journalistic or academic research purposes. This may provide a defense in some cases.
• Lawful authorization: Police officers or government agents authorized to intercept communications as part of their duties may not be liable.
• Minimal content: Disclosing only minimal identifying information from communications may not rise to the level of criminality. But this is an unsettled area legally.
• Mistake of law: A sincere belief that your conduct was legal may help rebut criminal liability in some cases where the law is unclear.

An experienced criminal defense lawyer can help assess whether any defenses may apply to your specific situation if charged under this statute.

Why Does New Jersey Have This Law?

The policy goal behind Section 2C:33-21 is to protect the integrity of vital emergency communications networks. Intercepting or disclosing these communications could jeopardize public safety and law enforcement operations.

Some specific risks include:

• Criminals could use intercepted communications to evade or disrupt law enforcement activities.
• Disclosing medical communications could violate patient privacy.
• Hoax communications based on intercepted material could trigger dangerous false emergencies.
• Public release of sensitive communications could undermine agency operations and officer safety.

So the law aims to deter harmful interception and use of official emergency communications. But critics argue it sweeps too broadly and may infringe on free speech rights in some cases.

Recent Controversies

• In 2020, a journalist was charged for monitoring police radios to gather news. Media advocates condemned the charges as violating free speech. Prosecutors later dismissed the case.
• A New Jersey man faced charges in 2021 after livestreaming police radio traffic during Black Lives Matter protests. His lawyer has argued the communications were made public by police.

The line between protected monitoring and illegal interception is not always 100% clear. These cases illustrate some of the complexities in applying the law.