Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

174 N.J. Super. 453

416 A.2d 971

State v. Ortense

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VALENTINO ORTENSE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Submitted June 2, 1980.

Decided June 19, 1980.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1980-06-19

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1999

6 state decisions

Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Alderman v. United States · James v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-06-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*454James T. O'Halloran, Prosecutor of Hudson County, for the appellant (Lawrence H. Posner, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

¶2Abrams & Wofsy, for the respondent (Marshall J. Wofsy, on the brief).

¶3Before Judges ALLCORN, MORGAN and FRANCIS.

¶4The opinion of the court was delivered by ALLCORN, P.J.A.D.

¶5Where, 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 *455 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).

¶6Accordingly, the order of suppression is reversed and set aside.

/174/njsuper/453 · .json · Public domain