Bad Acts and Cell Phone Info In, Insanity Out in Feliciano Case

A judge ruled Monday that electronic communications between a cellular telephone belonging to the Rev. Edward Hinds of St. Patrick Church and cell phone towers will be allowed in the trial against Hinds' accused murderer, Jose Feliciano.

Police requested the communications or "pings" between the phone and towers from Verizon over a 12 hour period between Hinds' stabbing on Oct. 22, 2009 and his body being found on Oct. 23, 2009 at approximately 8 a.m.

The request was made on Oct. 23, 2009 at approximately 1:46 p.m., after it was determined that Hinds' cell phone was missing. Police did not obtain a warrant for the pings and other information about incoming and outgoing calls made to and from the phone, appealing to the company directly.

These pings tracked the phone's movement and turned the telephone into a tracking device, argued defense attorney Ana Tent.

The pings, Tent said, made the phone a tracking device because they "reveal[ed] the location of the user and the cell phone, and therefore a warrant is required."

Tent said the police should have obtained a warrant for the information. "A judge needs to determine probable cause," she said, citing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.

Morris County Prosecutor John McNamara, Jr. said that in order for police to need probable cause, the user of the phone needed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Tent, he said, "did not address how ... a defendant who stole an item rom someone else can have an expectation pf privacy for electronic information."

McNamara also said that the information requested by police did not allow for real-time tracking. The information covered a 12-hour window from Oct. 22 to Oct. 23 when Hinds' body was discovered. Such "historic information" does not require a warrant, McNamara said, especially not when exigent circumstances occur, such as protecting the public and preserving evidence.

The Hon. Thomas V. Manahan, sitting in Morristown, said that the requirements for exigent circumstances in the matter were "clearly satisfied," and that there can be "no expectation of provacy in a phone that was determined to be stolen."

Manahan also said he would allow prosecutors to present information regarding an open warrant for Feliciano's arrest in Pennsylvania on charges of inapproprate sexual behavior with a minor.

Prosecutors argued that Hinds found out about the charges and was about to terminate Feliciano's employment as a janitor at St. Patrick Church, providing a motive for Feliciano to kill him, and that prosecutors should be allowed "wide latitude" in establishing motive.

McNamara said that Hinds had conducted computer searches and research into Feliciano's criminal past, and that evidence of these background investigations was found on the victim's computer. He said that he did not wish to argue the underlying case, only to let the jury know of the warrant's existence and the nature of the allegation, since "the case touched on a juvenile and the defendant worked in close proximity with juveniles.

"This policy is premised upon the precept that people who have committed cimes against kids shouldn't be allowed near kids," McNamara said, citing St. Patrick's policy of conducting background checks on all employees and volunteers.

Defense attorney Neill Hamilton argued that there was no evidence that Hinds knew about the warrant or was about to fire Feliciano, and that any witnesses called could not testify under hearsay objections.

Hamilton said, "there is no proof" that Hinds or anyone else at the diocese knew of Feliciano's background, and no proof that Feliciano knew termination was pending.

"You have to know something in order to act," Hamilton said.

McNamara said he would allow evidence of Feliciano's 1987 arrest and bench warrant in Pennsylvania because of the "wide latitude" granted to prosecutors when trying to establish motive.

"The court finds clearly that Mr. Feliciano knew he was about to be terminated," Manahan said in his decision, citing also that two witnesses reported to police that they had spoken to Hinds about Feliciano.

Provided that an appropriate foundation can be found, Manahan said, Feliciano's Pennsylvania charges "can be used for motive ... [but] not [to] unduly inflame or prejudice the jury."

Testimony will be heard in the case Monday afternoon from Morris County detectives in the case against Feliciano. Hamilton said before court adjourned Monday morning that his client would not pursue an affirmative defense. Hamilton told the court that he would pursue an insanity defense.

Hinds was discovered on the morning of Oct. 23 when he failed to appear for morning Mass. He was stabbed 32 times in the head and torso. Feliciano was arrested for the crime on Oct. 24.