State v. Bisaccia

Citation279 A.2d 675,58 N.J. 586
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert E. BISACCIA et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Decision Date21 July 1971
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

David S. Baime, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellant (John De Cicco, on the brief; Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).

Anthony T. Colasanti, Newark, for respondents (Angelo R. Bianchi, Newark, attorney).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

WEINTRAUB, C.J.

The trial court ordered the suppression of evidence seized under a search warrant. The Appellate Division affirmed. We granted the State's petition for certification. 57 N.J. 599, 274 A.2d 53 (1971).

The affidavit submitted on the application for the warrant described the premises as:

371 10th Street, Belleville, New Jersey, which is a one story frame building with a store; in front a large sign over the entrance saying Coca Cola Toys--Candy Coca Cola.

The affidavit mentioned also 'the front porch' upon which a look-out was stationed. The search warrant authorized a search of 'the premises located at 371 10th Street, a one story frame building Belleville, New Jersey.' It did not contain the further factual detail we have quoted from the affidavit.

The officer who executed the warrant was the affiant in the affidavit and he had personally made the surveillance of the premises detailed in the affidavit. The judge who issued the warrant of course intended the very building described in the affidavit, and the structure searched was the very premises the officer described in his affidavit. The motion to suppress rested upon the fact that the correct number of the building was 375, rather than 371. But the building was unmistakably described in the affidavit. It was a one-story frame building; it had a store; there was the sign reading 'Coca Cola Toys--Candy Coca Cola'; and it had a front porch. No other structure in the vicinity matched that description. There would have been no problem had the warrant contained that further description. See State v. Daniels, 46 N.J. 428, 217 A.2d 610 (1966).

The error as to street number occurred this way: The one-story building described in the affidavit did not bear a street number. It stood between two two-story structures, one of which was numbered 373. The officer concluded that the premises in question, if numbered, would be numbered 371. In fact the numbers ran the other way, so that the number attributable to the premises in question was 375. At 371, there was an empty lot with a small unused garage in the rear, a distance variously estimated from 50 to 100 feet from the sidewalk. The building in question, like those near it, had a setback of five feet. Neither the vacant lot nor the garage bore an identifying number; the number 371 is to be found, we gather, only on the tax bill for the lot. The nearest one-story building on either side of the street was four or five houses away from the property here involved.

In deciding whether the rule of suppression innovated as to the States by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), should be applied, it is well to reflect upon the competing values involved.

Truth and justice are inseparable. A deliberately false judgment debases the judicial process, and no less so because the false judgment is an acquittal. On a motion to suppress we deal with evidence of guilt, and the purpose of the litigant is to conceal that evidence to the end that he will escape conviction notwithstanding his guilt. Hypothetically there could be some case in which the evidence sought to be suppressed would falsely suggest guilt, but a judge would be short in realism if he did not understand that the evidence he is asked to suppress is evidence of guilt and that the judgment of not guilty which will ensue will likely be false. To justify so serious an insult to the judicial process, some compensating gain should be incontestable.

One cannot reasonably deny the need for some remedy for a breach of the Fourth Amendment guaranty against an unreasonable search and seizure. The question is whether suppression of the truth with the consequent acquittal of the guilty is a fair and an effective measure to that end. The ostensible reason for the rule is to assure compliance with the Fourth Amendment by barring the use of the fruits of a violation. That suppression is effective in curtailing infractions of the Amendment is quite doubtful. See Oaks, 'Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure,' 37 U.Chi.L.Rev. 665 (1970). But if it were, the justice of the suppression doctrine would remain questionable as it was when Mapp was handed down, and even more so because of a decade of experience under that decision. The reasons are evident.

The first right of the individual is to be protected from attack. That is why we have government, as the preamble to the Federal Constitution plainly says. In the words of Chicago v. Sturges, 222 U.S. 313, 322, 32 S.Ct. 92, 93, 56 L.Ed. 215, 220 (1911):

Primarily, governments exist for the maintenance of social order. Hence it is that the obligation of the government to protect life, liberty, and property against the conduct of the indifferent, the careless, and the evil-minded, may be regarded as lying at the very foundation of the social compact.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to deny that primary mission. This is not to belittle the inestimable rights thus consecrated, but rather to say that those rights may not be read to defeat the very reason for government itself.

We must be mindful that the contest is not between the State and the individual. The contest is wholly between competing rights of the individual--the right to be protected from criminal attack and the several rights in the Amendments. When the truth is suppressed and the criminal is set free, the pain of suppression is felt, not by the inanimate State or by some penitent policeman, but by the offender's next victims for whose protection we hold office. In that direct way, Mapp denies the innocent the protection due them.

But Mapp impairs the primary right of the individual to protection from crime in still other ways. The release of the guilty must blunt and breed contempt for the deterrent thrust of the criminal law. Moreover the case-by-case process of law-making in the application of Mapp has left State officers quite at sea as to what is expected of them. The time-distance between the Supreme Court and the firing line is just too great and the case-by-case process to lumbering and too cumbersome, to permit that Court to exercise effective and responsible management of the criminal business of the States. As a result, the State courts (and the federal bench as well) are drained of energy sorely needed for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Wilson v. Superior Court, Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1982
    ...consecrated, but rather to say that those rights may not be read to defeat the very reason for government itself." (State v. Bisaccia (1971) 58 N.J. 586, 279 A.2d 675.) "The Federalist" is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay between October 1787 a......
  • People v. Profit
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 1986
    ...criminals and thereby weakened the deterrent effect of criminal law...." Chief Justice Weintraub of the State of New Jersey in State v. Bisaccia (1971) 58 N.J. 586 stated "The first right of the individual [and society] is to be protected from attack. That is why we have government, as the ......
  • State v. Novembrino
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • January 7, 1987
    ......Zito, 54 N.J. 206, 211, 254 A.2d 769 (1969) (holding that "the product of a search should not be suppressed when a search is made in good faith upon the strength of a statute later declared unconstitutional); State v. Bisaccia, 58 N.J. 586, 589-91, 279 A.2d 675 (1971). ("It is puzzling that the suppression rule was not anchored to the reason for its creation. The evil sought to be ended was insolence in office.") .         The majority here asserts that at least since the decision in State v. Valentin, 36 N.J. ......
  • United States ex rel. Petillo v. State of NJ
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 18, 1975
    ...majority of a court, and notwithstanding that the policeman and the magistrate acted without a trace of insolence. State v. Bisaccia, 58 N.J. 586, 590, 279 A.2d 675 (1971). If insolence is to be deterred, other remedies can be Nonetheless, in some cases the egregiousness of the police condu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT