NJ: SDT for S&W records on use of its products in NJ was enforced; 1A and other claims preserved

Subpoenas for documents under the state Consumer Fraud Act about the ability of average consumers to use plaintiff’s firearms for personal or home defense were enforceable under the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff’s claims under other amendments are preserved for later. Platkin v. Smith & Wesson Sales Co., 2023 N.J. Super. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 26, 2023)* (“We remain mindful that subpoenas must not be issued ‘arbitrarily or in excess of … statutory authority ….’ Ibid. However, defendant has not presented anything beyond mere supposition and premature constitutional objections to support the proposition that plaintiffs’ subpoena is not valid or overbroad in scope. [¶] For the reasons set forth, we find Judge Alper did not abuse her discretion when she granted plaintiffs’ motion to enforce its October 13, 2020 subpoena and denied defendant’s motion to stay, quash, or dismiss same.”)

The defendant officers’ arrest of plaintiff for stalking was justified by the facts. The fact the criminal case was dismissed here doesn’t show it wasn’t justified. He was also on probation for harassment, and that led to a valid search of his computer and belongings. Ryno v. City of Waynesville, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2004 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Privileges, Probable cause, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.