when they came to your door on July 27, 2000?" and "When you signed that paper on July 27, 2000, did you believe the police had a search warrant?" The results of the examination were inconclusive with regard to the question: "Did you invite the police into your house in Williamstown on July 27, 2000?” 11 See also State v. Barbara, 400 Mich. 352, 255 N.W.2d 171, 173 (1977) (permitting, at judge’s discretion, admission of polygraph evidence on post-conviction motions for new trial); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 544 S.E.2d 30, 35 (2001) (declaring that polygraph .2d 820 (1987) (rejecting under State Constitution federal “good faith” exception to exclusionary rule for search warrants issued in good faith but without probable cause); State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 350, 450 A.2d 952 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Alston, supra, at 224-30, 440 A.2d 1311
recognizing exception under state constitution holding state constitution affords protectable interest in telephone toll billing records holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records under either state or federal constitution recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution holding that state constitution protects privacy interests in telephone toll billing records