Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL MERCURIO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1970-05-18
Citations: 113 N.J. Super. 113
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL MERCURIO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 113–119

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL MERCURIO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued April 27, 1970
Decided May 18, 1970.
Before Judges Sullivan, Carton and Halpern.
Mr. Joseph A. Falcone, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).
Mr. Elmer J. Herrmann, Jr., argued the cause for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The State, pursuant to leave granted, appeals from an order of the county court suppressing evidence seized by the State in a search of certain premises made under a search warrant issued by a municipal judge.
We are here concerned with a situation where the State submitted the information it had obtained as to violation of the gambling laws to a judge who found probable cause to exist and issued a search warrant.
In this situation, State v. Kasabuchi, 52 N. J. 110, 117 (1968), admonishes that "Once the judge has made a finding of probable cause on the proof submitted and issued a search warrant, a reviewing court, especially a trial court, should pay substantial deference to his determination."
The State concedes that the affidavit is barely adequate but relies on the holding in Kasabuclci, supra, that " when the adequacy of the facts offered to show probable cause is challenged after a search made pursuant to a warrant, and their adequacy appears to be marginal, the doubt should ordinarily be resolved by sustaining the search." [at 116] The court went on to say:
xhe affidavits presented to the court on the application should not be examined with a hypertechnical eye. The approach must be a practical and common sense one. It must be engaged in with a consciousness that bookmaking operations are carried on cautiously, furtively and deceptively, and by as many camouflages as human ingenuity can devise. State v. Contursi, supra, 44 N. J., at p. 431. The consideration cannot be a grudging one. Such an attitude would give no weight to the good faith of the police officer in seeking judicial sanction for the search. Moreover, that attitude would probably result in failure to take into account a significant factor, i. e., the officer's experience with bookmaking activities and the factual indications of them. [52 N. J. at 120]
We conclude that the instant matter is controlled by Kasabucki. The police had received information from a reliable informant as to violation of the gambling laws. Surveillance of the premises over a five-day period furnished police with additional facts which they believed sufficiently verified the informant's tip. They submitted the proof they had to a judge who issued the warrant. Our review of the underlying affidavit leads us to conclude that, while the State's proofs were marginal, they were such that a judge could have properly found probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.
Reversed.