State v. Sheppard
| Decision Date | 21 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. A--100,A--100 |
| Citation | 218 A.2d 156,46 N.J. 526 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy SHEPPARD, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Philip R. Glucksman, Asst. County Prosecutor, for appellant (Brendan T. Byrne, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Philip R. Glucksman, Newark, on the brief).
Hymen B. Mintz, Newark, for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered
On February 4, 1965, James P. Moore, a criminal investigator for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service, applied to a United States Commissioner for a search warrant and submitted the following affidavit:
'That (I have) reason to believe that on the premises known as 123 Clinton Avenue, Newark, Essex Co., New Jersey, areas and places under the immediate custody and control of the superintendent at said house, including first floor rear apartment, storage bins and areas, utility areas and all other areas under his custody and control in the Judicial District of New Jersey there is now being concealed certain property, namely non-taxpaid spirits which are in violation of Sections 5601(a)(12), 5604(a)(1), and 7206(4), Internal Revenue Code.
And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows: On February 2, 1965 I received information from a source which has supplied reliable information in the past, and whom I believe to be reliable that illicit non-taxpaid spirits are being sold by the superintendent at 123 Clinton Avenue, Newark, New Jersey. On the same date this source entered the aforementioned premises after I had searched him to determine that he possessed no liquor, and he went into the first floor rear apartment. He emerged a short time later and handed me a 1/2 pint bottle filled with non-taxpaid spirits.'
On the basis of the affidavit the Commissioner issued a warrant authorizing a search of 'Portions of and areas in the rooming house at 123 Clinton Avenue, Newark, Essex County, New Jersey, such areas as are under the immediate custody and control of superindendent of said building including first floor rear apartment, storage and utility areas and other places under his control.'
A search was conducted pursuant to the warrant and a quantity of untaxed liquor was seized. The defendant was thereafter indicted for possession of untaxed alcohol in violation of N.J.S.A. 33:1--50(e).
Prior to trial the defendant moved to suppress the evidence which had been seized during the search. The trial court granted the defendant's motion and ordered the evidence suppressed on the ground that the description of the place to be searched was too general. The Appellate Division granted the State's motion for leave to appeal the trial court's order, and before argument there we certified the appeal on our own motion.
For a search warrant to be constitutionally valid it must be based on probable cause and it must particularly describe the place to be searched. U.S.Const. Amend. IV; N.J.Const., Art. I, par. 7. The showing of probable cause and the particularity of the description of the place to be searched are generally treated separately, but in the present case they must be considered together because the showing of probable cause determines the scope of the warrant. See United States v. Hinton, 219 F.2d 324, 325 (7 Cir. 1955). The defendant contends that the affidavit submitted to the Commissioner showed probable cause only for a search of the first floor rear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...they should have. An arrest or search warrant, like an arrest without a warrant, must be grounded on probable cause (State v. Sheppard, 46 N.J. 526, 218 A.2d 156 (1967), and no probable cause existed for the issuance of any such warrant until the two incriminating plates appeared on the Det......
-
Stroble v. Egeler
...408 F. Supp. 630 ... Bernard STROBLE, Petitioner, ... Charles E. EGELER, Warden, State Prison for Southern Michigan, Respondent ... Civ. A. No. 5-71943 ... United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D ... February 23, 1976.408 ... ...
-
State v. Masco
...v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1924); State v. Daniels, 46 N.J. 428, 217 A.2d 610 (1966); State v. Sheppard, 46 N.J. 526, 218 A.2d 156 (1966)), and the 'things' to be seized (see Stanford v. State of Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485, 85 S.Ct. 506, 13 L.Ed.2d 431 (1965))......
-
State v. Wright
...95 N.J.Super. 209, 230 A.2d 516 (App.Div.1967); State v. Ferrara, 98 N.J.Super. 534, 237 A.2d 905 (App.Div.1968); State v. Sheppard, 46 N.J. 526, 218 A.2d 156 (1966). If the sufficiency of a warrant is marginal, the search will be held valid. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 8......