Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VALENTINO ORTENSE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1980-06-19
Citations: 174 N.J. Super. 453
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VALENTINO ORTENSE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 174
Pages: 453–455

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VALENTINO ORTENSE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted June 2, 1980
Decided June 19, 1980.
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.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ALLCORN, P. J. A. D.
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.