State v. Cymerman

Citation135 N.J.Super. 591,343 A.2d 825
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. David CYMERMAN et al., Defendants. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. John GARNER et al., Defendants.
Decision Date03 July 1975
CourtSuperior Court of New Jersey

Robert L. Cerefice, Newark, for plaintiff (Kenneth P. Ply, Newark, on the brief).

Barry M. Epstein, Elizabeth, for defendants David Cymerman and Heidi Cymerman (Reibel, Isaac, Tannenbaum & Epstein, Elizabeth, attorneys).

John A. Ridley, Newark, for defendant Solomon Cymerman (Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan & Purcell, Newark, attorneys).

McGLYNN, J.D.C., Temporarily Assigned.

Defendants move to suppress a sizeable quantity of marijuana and numerous other items of contraband seized from an apartment at 265 Grove Street, Elizabeth by members of the Union County Prosecutor's Office and Elizabeth narcotics squad. The seizure was authorized by Superior Court Judge Harold A. Ackerman following a telephone conversation he had with Lt. Richard Mason of the Union County Prosecutor's Office and Assistant Prosecutor John H. Stamler of that office. The question presented, a novel one in New Jersey, is whether a search warrant may be applied for and issued telephonically. I am of the view that such a warrant is valid and the seizure resulting from its issuance will be sustained.

Judge Ackerman was called at his home by Assistant Prosecutor Stamler shortly before 1 a.m. on March 18, 1974. Stamler and Mason both spoke with the judge simultaneously and presented information which had been received by Mason at 12:35 a.m. at his home. The coversation relating to the information and the warrant was recorded by Stamler and a transcript of the conversation from the preserved recording was prepared and later certified by Judge Ackerman. It reveals that the judge was called for the express purpose of hearing an emergent application for a search warrant.

Following the administering of an oath to Lt. Mason over the telephone by Judge Ackerman, Stamler asked the judge to accept Lt. Mason's qualifications as an expert in the field of drug abuse. Judge Ackerman did so based upon his prior knowledge of Mason's qualifications. Mason then told Judge Ackerman that some 20 minutes earlier he had received a phone call from Detective Pariso of the Essex County Strike Force, in which Pariso told him that at midnight a subject had been arrested in the South Mountain Reservation in Essex County following the sale of 40 pounds of marijuana to an undercover agent. The subject had told the Essex authorities that the 40 pounds was part of a large shipment of 300 pounds which had been brought into New Jersey by him and the defendant David Cymerman and that the remaining marijuana was in Cymerman's apartment at 265 Grove Street in Elizabeth. Pariso also told Mason that when they were effectuating the arrest in Essex County another person involved with defendants had escaped apprehension on foot and was at that time being sought by the authorities. Mason advised that the Essex County authorities were concerned that if the person who escaped got to a telephone, he would call Cymerman and that therefore the balance of the marijuana would be lost from detection and seizure. Finally, Mason told Judge Ackerman that he had received reliable information from Pariso and other law enforcement authorites in Pariso's office on approximately 50 prior occasions, and that many substantial drug seizures had been made as a result of the prior information.

Stamler then advised the judge that he sought a search warrant limited solely to the apartment Mason described at 265 Grove Street, Elizabeth. Finding that probable cause existed for a search of the premises based on the information given to him in the call, Judge Ackerman authorized the search of the premises at 1:06 a.m. and further authorized Stamler to advise any persons at the apartment that the officers were acting pursuant to Judge Ackerman's authorization. A return on the warrant was prepared on March 20 and indicates that Stamler, Mason and five other officers executed Judge Ackerman's warrant at 1:19 a.m. on the apartment in question. The return and inventory of items seized were served on defendants David and Heidi Cymerman, the occupants of the apartment in question.

The evidence seized was made the basis of a conspiracy charge against those two defendants, Solomon Cymerman, John Garner and Lisa Brick. The overt acts include an allegation that on March 17, 1974 Garner, Brick and Solomon Cymerman possessed marijuana and Garner and Brick possessed LSD in Livington, and that David and Heidi possessed marijuana in Elizabeth. A separate indictment charges Garner and Brick with possession and possession with intent to distribute LSD on March 17, 1974 in Livingston, and Garner, Brick and Solomon Cymerman with possession and possession with intent to distribute marijuana on the same date in Livingston. All of the charges against Garner and Brick have been disposed of and all of the remaining charges against Divid, Heidi and Solomon consolidated for the purpose of trial. The Cymermans bring this motion to suppress.

At the very outset they contend that the evidence seized in Elizabeth pursuant to Judge Ackerman's authorization must be suppressed since the State absolutely failed to comply with the requirements of R. 3:5--3. That rule requires that the applicant for the warrant personally appear before the issuing magistrate. It contemplates that a written warrant be dated and issued, specifying the place to be searched, the property seized and the permissible hours of execution. Since Mason did not personally appear before Judge Ackerman, and since no written warrant was issued, defendants contend that the seizure was invalid.

This argument is without merit. It ignores the existence of R. 1:1--2, which permits the relaxation of any rule (with exceptions not applicable here) if adherence to the rule would result in an injustice. In State v. Fariello, 133 N.J.Super. 114, 335 A.2d 582 (App.Div.1975), for example, the failure of the issuing judge to comply with the requirements of R. 3:5--6 regarding the filing of a summary of oral testimony was held not to invalidate an otherwise proper search. See State v. Clemente, 108 N.J.Super. 189, 260 A.2d 514 (App.Div.1969), certif. den. 55 N.J. 450, 262 A.2d 704 (1970); In re Search of C Co. Premises, 115 N.J.Super. 262, 279 A.2d 130 (App.Div.1971). In State v. Parsons, 83 N.J.Super. 430, 200 A.2d 340 (App.Div.1964), the failure of searching officers to execute a proper return as required by present R. 3:5--5 was held not to vitiate an otherwise proper search. The court stated that the return of a search warrant is a ministerial act and that a deficiency or failure in the return does not avoid the warrant or search thereunder, 'even if no return is made at all.' 83 N.J.Super. at 445, 200 A.2d at 349. Similarly, in State v. Harris, 98 N.J.Super. 502, 237 A.2d 887 (App.Div.1968), certif. den. 51 N.J. 396, 241 A.2d 13 (1968), the failure to file the affidavit in accordance with present R. 3:5--6 was held not to be fatal to an otherwise valid search. The court stated The rule requiring the filing of the affidavit is directory only. It was adopted in order to facilitate the administration of justice. It may not be used to frustrate that objective. The failure to comply with that rule does not automatically result in the invalidity of an affidavit or a warrant otherwise lawful. A wrongdoer should not benefit by the suppression of incriminating evidence simply because those documents have been lost. (98 N.J.Super. at 504--505, 237 A.2d at 889)

Thus, it would appear that the rules relating to the issuance of search warrants are indeed subject to the general relaxation rule so long as no basic Fourth Amendment rights are thereby abridged.

Defendants contend that the requirement in R. 3:5--3 of a face-to-face confrontation between the issuing magistrate and the affiant is constitutional dimension. I disagree. The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants issue 'supported by oath or affirmation,' while the requirement that the oath be taken by the issuing magistrate in the presence of the affiant appears to be judge-made. Defendants contend that State v. Petillo, 61 N.J. 165, 293 A.2d 649 (1972), Cert. den. 410 U.S. 945, 93 S.Ct. 1393, 35 L.Ed.2d 611 (1973) mandates a contrary conclusion. However, it would appear from Petillo that it is the oath itself and not the face-to-face confrontation which is mandated and which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment requirement. 61 N.J. at 174, 293 A.2d 649. Under the circumstances here, the oath administered to Mason by Judge Ackerman over the telephone was adequate to satisfy the Fourth Amendment mandate. An officer could no more avoid the sanction for perjury or false swearing by supplying false information over the telephone than if he lied after taking the oath with his fingers crossed behind his back in the judge's presence.

Moreover, there is no constitutional impediment to a telephonic application for the issuance of a warrant and its issuance telephonically. R. 3:5--3 contemplates an oral presentation in that it expressly permits the judge to examine, under oath, the applicant himself or any witness whose information the judge may require. The rules of court governing search warrants are meant to fulfill the constitutional need for a 'verified showing of probable cause before the issuing magistrate.' State v. Macri, 39 N.J. 250, 260, 188 A.2d 389, 395 (1963); State v. Mark, 46 N.J. 262, 216 A.2d 377 (1966). The rules, then, are designed to embody the constitutional mandate and to promote uniformity in the issuance and execution of the search warrants and, most importantly, the preservation of testimony and other evidence for use, if necessary, in subsequent motions to suppress. That mandate was satisfied here by the recording of the conversation Mason and Stamler had with Judge Ackerman.

In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • United States ex rel. Petillo v. State of NJ
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 18, 1975
    ...an opinion approved for publication, has recently held that a magistrate may properly authorize a warrant by telephone. State v. Cymerman, N.J.Super., 343 A.2d 825 (1975). Apparently, the procedure to be employed is to swear the policeman over the telephone, to let him read his affidavit in......
  • Com. v. Musi
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • August 20, 1979
    ...the fruits of the search is not justified. See also State v. Stachler, 570 P.2d 1323 (Hawaii 1977); See generally State v. Cymerman, 135 N.J.Super. 591, 343 A.2d 825 (1975). The last issue, which we will treat as properly preserved for review, 13 is the trial court's failure in admitting te......
  • City of New Brunswick v. Speights
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • February 14, 1978
    ...by the Supreme Court is no different under state law. State v. De Simone, 60 N.J. 319, 288 A.2d 849 (1972); State v. Cymerman, 135 N.J.Super. 591, 343 A.2d 825 (Law Div.1975); State v. Droutman, 143 N.J.Super. 322, 362 A.2d 1304 (Law Div.1976). The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repa......
  • State v. Fariello
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1976
    ...51 N.J. 396, 241 A.2d 13 (1968); State v. Parsons, 83 N.J.Super. 430, 445, 200 A.2d 340 (App.Div.1964); State v. Cymerman, 135 N.J.Super. 591, 597--598, 343 A.2d 825 (Law Div.1975). In State v. Harris, supra, the defendant unsuccessfully sought to suppress evidence because the affidavit upo......
  • 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