From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ortense

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Jun 19, 1980
174 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

Submitted June 2, 1980 —

Decided June 19, 1980.

Appeal from Superior Court, Law Division.

James T. O'Halloran, Prosecutor of Hudson County, for the appellant ( Lawrence H. Posner, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

Abrams Wofsy, for the respondent ( Marshall J. Wofsy, on the brief).

Before Judges ALLCORN, MORGAN and FRANCIS.


Where, as in this cause, a search warrant is issued on the basis of a supporting affidavit that sets forth information both lawfully obtained and unlawfully obtained, and the lawfully obtained information in and of itself constitutes probable cause which would have justified issuance of the warrant apart from the tainted information, the evidence taken in execution of the warrant was properly seized and thus is not subject to suppression. Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); Alderman v. U.S., 394 U.S. 165, 183, 89 S.Ct. 961, 972, 22 L.Ed.2d 176, 192 (1969); James v. U.S., 418 F.2d 1150, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Howell v. Cupp, 427 F.2d 36 (9 Cir. 1970).

Accordingly, the order of suppression is reversed and set aside.


Summaries of

State v. Ortense

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Jun 19, 1980
174 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

State v. Ortense

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VALENTINO ORTENSE…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Jun 19, 1980

Citations

174 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 1980)
416 A.2d 971

Citing Cases

State v. Rivera-Lopez

Thus, the evidence found on defendant's cell phone in execution of the search warrant was not subject to…

State v. Pemberthy

Even if we considered the evidence obtained by the monitoring of the "blue box" conversations improperly…