Opinion ID: 1516571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Article I, Paragraph 7

Text: It is an established principle of our federalist system that state constitutions may be a source of individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 2040, 64 L.Ed. 2d 741, 752 (1980); see Oregon v. Haas, 420 U.S. 714, 718, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 1218-19, 43 L.Ed. 2d 570, 575 (1975); State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508, 522 (1986); Symposium: The Emergence of State Constitutional Law, 63 Tex.L.Rev. 959 (1985); Pollock, State Constitutions as Separate Sources of Fundamental Rights, 35 Rutgers L.Rev. 707 (1983); Developments in the Law  The Interpretation of State Constitutional Rights, 95 Harv.L.Rev. 1324 (1982); Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 489 (1977); Note, The New Jersey Supreme Court's Interpretation and Application of the State Constitution, 15 Rutgers L.J. 491 (1984). This Court has frequently resorted to our own State Constitution in order to afford our citizens broader protection of certain personal rights than that afforded by analogous or identical provisions of the federal Constitution. State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39 (1983); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287 (1982); State v. Hunt, supra, 91 N.J. 338; State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (1981); State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 (1980), appeal dismissed sub nom. Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 867, 70 L.Ed. 2d 855 (1982); State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349 (1975). Although the language of article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution is virtually identical with that of the fourth amendment, we have held in other contexts that it affords our citizens greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than does the fourth amendment. See State v. Hunt, supra, 91 N.J. 338 (individual has protectible interest in telephone toll billing records under article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution); State v. Alston, supra, 88 N.J. 211 (possessory interest in property sufficient to confer standing to challenge validity of automobile search); State v. Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. 349 (validity of consent to search depends on knowledge of the right to refuse consent). In this case, defendant urges that we construe our state-constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to preclude recognition of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in Leon. The Attorney General and the Hudson County Prosecutor argue that we should follow the Supreme Court's modification of the exclusionary rule and construe article I, paragraph 7 of our Constitution in a manner consistent with the good-faith exception. Our conclusion as to which of these courses to follow is strongly influenced by what we perceive to be the likely impact of our decision on the privacy rights of our citizens and the enforcement of our criminal laws, matters of particular state interest that afford an appropriate basis for resolving this issue on independent state grounds. See State v. Hunt, supra, 91 N.J. at 366 (Handler, J., concurring) (A state constitution may also be employed to address matters of particular state interest.) The State interest in the resolution of the issue before us is clarified to some extent by a historical perspective. Although our Constitution of 1776 did not include provisions equivalent to the Bill of Rights, [28] this was remedied in our Constitution of 1844, which incorporated a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures virtually identical to the fourth amendment and to article I, paragraph 7 of the 1947 Constitution. N.J. Const. of 1844 art. VI, para. 6; State v. Macri, supra, 39 N.J. at 256; Eleuteri v. Richman, 26 N.J. 506, 511, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 843, 79 S.Ct. 52, 3 L.Ed. 2d 77 (1958). Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio, supra, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081, New Jersey did not apply the exclusionary rule, adhering instead to a policy decision that competent proof shall be available for the prosecution of the offense notwithstanding illegality in the seizure. Eleuteri v. Richman, supra, 26 N.J. at 509-10; see State v. Alexander, 7 N.J. 585, 594 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 908, 72 S.Ct. 638, 96 L.Ed. 1326 (1952); State v. Guida, 118 N.J.L. 289, 297 (Sup.Ct. 1937), aff'd, 119 N.J.L. 464 (E. & A. 1938); State v. Merra, 103 N.J.L. 361 (E. & A. 1927); State v. Cortese, 104 N.J.L. 447 (E. & A. 1927), aff'g, 4 N.J. Misc. 683 (Sup.Ct. 1926); State v. Lyons, 99 N.J.L. 301 (E. & A. 1923). It is also noteworthy that during the Constitutional Convention of 1947 an amendment to article I, paragraph 7 was proposed that would have incorporated the exclusionary rule into the Constitution: Nothing obtained in violation thereof shall be received into evidence. Although the amendment was defeated, the debate included discussion of both the merits of the federal rule and the propriety of incorporating the rule into the constitutional guarantee. In his opinion in Eleuteri v. Richman, supra , Chief Justice Weintraub, an outspoken opponent of the exclusionary rule, accurately summarized the Convention proceedings: The issue was debated, with specific reference to the merits of the federal rule. One delegate added that in any event he questioned the advisability of incorporating an answer either way in organic law. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 46 to 25. 1 Convention Proceedings Record, 598, 608. We do not infer that the delegates intended thereby to embed our case law, but it is equally clear that the rule of exclusion is not the unmistakable wake of the constitutional provision. [26 N.J. at 511.] This Court first had occasion to apply the exclusionary rule in State v. Valentin, 36 N.J. 41 (1961). There, the defendant's motion to suppress evidence in a prosecution alleging that he possessed a shotgun without a permit had been denied without any offer of proof by the prosecutor as to the legality of the search and seizure. [29] While the appeal was pending before us, the Supreme Court decided Mapp v. Ohio, supra , holding the exclusionary rule applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the trial court to permit reconsideration of the suppression motion in the context of all relevant proof on the new issue generated by Mapp . 36 N.J. at 44. Since State v. Valentin, supra , the exclusionary rule has become imbedded in our jurisprudence. During the past twenty-five years it has consistently been applied to exclude from the State's case-in-chief evidence illegally obtained through warrantless searches or in reliance on defective warrants. E.g. State v. Valencia, 93 N.J. 126, 141 (1983) (evidence obtained as a result of telephone-authorized search would be suppressed where State failed to prove minimal procedural requirements to assure reliability); State v. Fariello, supra, 71 N.J. 552 (requiring suppression of evidence of narcotics possession where affidavit was insufficient to show probable cause and issuing judge made no transcription or summary of officer's testimony); State v. Macri, supra, 39 N.J. at 265-66 (mandating suppression of illegally seized evidence of bookmaking activities and rejecting State's argument in support of a good faith exception: The good faith of the officer would not be sufficient in a federal proceeding nor should it be viewed as sufficient here.); State v. Moriarity, 39 N.J. 502 (1963) (evidence that defendant conducted bookmaking and lottery was suppressed where affidavit did not show probable cause and officer's testimony to issuing judge not given under oath). [30] We also take note that our legislature in 1968 incorporated the exclusionary rule into its enactment of the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -26. That statute expressly provides for suppression of evidence derived from any intercepted wire or oral communication if the interception was unauthorized or inconsistent with the statute, or if the order of authorization was insufficient. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-21. Significantly, an officer's good-faith reliance on a court order authorizing the interception constitutes a defense to any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding instituted against the officer, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-25, but does not avoid the suppression of evidence derived from an improper interception. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-21. New Jersey's law-enforcement agencies have taken steps to enhance the quality of the search-warrant application process in order to assure compliance with the constitutionally-mandated probable-cause standard. Two recent initiatives are of particular significance. In July 1984 a special county grand jury issued a presentment concerning deficiencies in the procedure followed by a local police department in applying for and executing a search warrant resulting in the search and seizure of property without probable cause. The presentment noted that the execution of a search warrant is the most intrusive invasion of privacy permitted by government agents, and set forth the grand jury's finding that the group of citizens affected by the execution of the warrants    did not receive the protection of law afforded by the Constitution. Presentment, Special Union County Grand Jury, Panel No. 6, March Stated Session 1984 Term. Prompted in part by the findings of the grand jury presentment, the Attorney General and the County Prosecutors Association adopted in February 1985 a joint policy statement intended to achieve the institutionalization of a systematic search warrant review procedure in New Jersey. [31] The policy statement, which applies to all State, County, and municipal officers, requires that [a]ll applications for search warrants shall be reviewed by the Attorney General or his designees, or the appropriate County Prosecutor, or his designees, prior to their submission to the Courts for authorization. The Court has been informed, in response to its direct inquiry, that this policy statement has been implemented without exception in every county in the State. [32] We are also cognizant of the significant and recurring search warrant training programs offered regularly to municipal court judges throughout the state. We assume that the likely effect of such a statewide policy requiring competent legal review of search warrant applications, combined with the training programs for municipal judges, would be to enhance the extent of compliance with the probable-cause standard and minimize the incidents of suppression of evidence because of defectively-issued warrants. [33] In this connection, a survey performed by the Administrative Office of the Courts with respect to suppression motions in ten counties during the six-month period of December 1, 1985, to May 31, 1986, reveals that of the 1082 motions filed, 540 motions have been resolved. Of these, 38 were granted and all of the granted motions involved warrantless searches. In addition, the study examined all of the granted suppression motions in three of the ten counties for an additional six-month period and in two additional counties during a twelve-month period. Out of 44 granted motions, only one suppression order involved a search warrant defective for lack of probable cause. Administrative Office of the Courts, Report on Suppression Motions, July 30, 1986. [34] This survey was not statewide and examined a limited sample of suppression motions. Nevertheless, its results suggest that currently in New Jersey the grant of motions to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to defective search warrants is relatively uncommon and apparently poses no significant obstacle to law-enforcement efforts. We note that one of the most frequently recurring themes in the criticism that has been directed at the Leon decision [35] is that it will tend to undermine the motivation of law-enforcement officers to comply with the constitutional requirement of probable cause. Professor LaFave makes the argument cogently: Under the pre- Leon version of the exclusionary rule, police had finally come to learn that it was not enough that they had gotten a piece of paper called a warrant. Because that warrant was subject to challenge at the later motion to suppress, it was important to the police that the warrant be properly issued or that the warrant request be turned down at a time when it might be possible to acquire necessary additional information without compromising the investigation. Consequently, there had developed in many localities the very sound practice of going through the warrant-issuing process with the greatest of care, often by having the affidavit reviewed by individuals other than the magistrate.    But under Leon there is no reason to go through such cautious procedures and every reason not to. Why take the risk that some conscientious prosecutor or police supervisor will say the application is insufficient when, if some magistrate can be induced to issue a warrant on the basis of it, the affidavit is thereafter virtually immune from challenge? There is thus no escaping the fact that, as the Leon dissenters put it, the long-run effect of that case unquestionably will be to undermine the integrity of the warrant process. [1 LaFave, Search and Seizure, supra (1986 Pocket Part), § 1.2, at 20.] [36] We find this criticism of the good-faith exception to be persuasive. One obvious consequence of the application of the exclusionary rule in New Jersey has been the encouragement of law-enforcement officials to comply with the constitutionally-mandated probable-cause standard in order to avoid the suppression of evidence. The Leon rule avoids suppression of evidence even if the constitutional standard is violated, requiring only that the officer executing the defective warrant have an objectively reasonable basis for relying on it. Whatever else may be said for or against the Leon rule, the good-faith exception will inevitably and inexorably diminish the quality of evidence presented in search-warrant applications. By eliminating any cost for noncompliance with the constitutional requirement of probable cause, the good-faith exception assures us that the constitutional standard will be diluted. We note that Justice White, author of the Leon opinion, expressed concerns very similar to these in his dissent in I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed. 2d 778 (1984), decided the same day as Leon, a case in which the Court held that the exclusionary rule need not be applied in civil deportation proceedings. Responding to the majority's observation that the training of immigration officers in fourth-amendment principles made application of the exclusionary rule unnecessary, Justice White noted: [I]mmigration officers are instructed and examined in Fourth Amendment law, and it is suggested that this education is another reason why the exclusionary rule is unnecessary. A contrary lesson could be discerned from the existence of these programs, however, when it is recalled that they were instituted during a legal regime in which the cases and commentators uniformly sanctioned the invocation of the rule in deportation proceedings. Thus, rather than supporting a conclusion that the exclusionary rule is unnecessary, the existence of these programs instead suggests that the exclusionary rule has created incentives for the agency to ensure that its officers follow the dictates of the Constitution. Since the deterrent function of the rule is furthered if it alters either the behavior of individual law enforcement officers or the policies of their departments, it seems likely that it was the rule's deterrent effect that led to the programs to which the Court now points for its assertion that the rule would have no deterrent effect. [ Id. at 1055, 104 S.Ct. at 3492-93, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 796 (quoting Leon, supra, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed. 2d 677).] [37] Our view that the good-faith exception will ultimately reduce respect for and compliance with the probable-cause standard that we have steadfastly enforced persuades us that there is a strong state interest that would be disserved by adopting the Leon rule. We acknowledge the virtue of consistency between federal and state courts in the administration of the criminal laws, although we note that from the decision in Weeks, supra, in 1914 until Mapp v. Ohio, supra , in 1961, the exclusionary rule applied in the federal courts but was not constitutionally compelled in the states. Although there is irony in the reversal of these roles, there is ample precedent for the view that uniformity between federal and state courts is not essential with regard to the exclusionary rule. See Wolf v. Colorado, supra, 338 U.S. at 28-33, 69 S.Ct. at 1361-64, 93 L.Ed. at 1786-88. In this connection, we observe that Leon has generated significant debate in other jurisdictions. [38] Ultimately, we focus on the inevitable tension between the proposed good-faith exception and the guarantee contained in our State Constitution that search warrants shall not issue except upon probable cause. In the twenty-five years during which we have applied the exclusionary rule in New Jersey, we have perceived no dilution of our probable-cause standard; rather, efforts to comply with the constitutional mandate have been enhanced. Nor do we perceive that application of the exclusionary rule has in any significant way impaired the ability of law-enforcement officials to enforce the criminal laws. The statistical evidence is to the contrary. We recognize that the exclusionary rule may pose a greater obstacle to law enforcement in other jurisdictions where nonlawyer magistrates are authorized to issue search warrants and police officers' affidavits are not subjected to review by trained prosecutors. Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 235, 103 S.Ct. at 2330-31, 76 L.Ed. 2d at 546; Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345, 92 S.Ct. 2119, 32 L.Ed. 2d 783 (1972); see Wasserstrom & Mertens, supra note 26, at 106-11. The incidence of defective search warrants in other jurisdictions may partially explain the Supreme Court's adoption of a less restrictive federal standard for testing the admissibility of evidence thus obtained. Plainly, the same considerations do not apply in New Jersey. In the face of evidence that New Jersey's criminal justice system is not impaired by the constitutional guarantee of probable cause, our dissenting colleague nevertheless urges us to adopt the good-faith exception promulgated in Leon because she perceives that the public will view the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule as a sensible accommodation between protecting an individual's constitutional rights and punishing the guilty. Post at 187. We have little doubt that the dissent is accurate in this assessment, particularly at a time when widespread drug use and drug-related law enforcement are issues that dominate the national consciousness. The public is likely to have little short-term tolerance for any rule that encumbers even minimally the prosecution of drug-related crime. Our concern, however, is with the Constitution and with the basic and fundamental guarantees that that document was intended to afford to all our citizens, particularly in times of public ferment. In our view, the citizen's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted without probable cause is just such a fundamental principle, to be preserved and protected with vigilance. In our tripartite system of separate governmental powers, the primary responsibility for its preservation is that of the judiciary. The exclusionary rule, by virtue of its consistent application over the past twenty-five years, has become an integral element of our state-constitutional guarantee that search warrants will not issue without probable cause. Its function is not merely to deter police misconduct. The rule also serves as the indispensable mechanism for vindicating the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. [39] Because we believe that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule adopted in Leon would tend to undermine the constitutionally-guaranteed standard of probable cause, and in the process disrupt the highly effective procedures employed by our criminal justice system to accommodate that constitutional guarantee without impairing law enforcement, we decline to recognize a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In reaching this result, we can hardly ignore the ebb and flow of federal search-and-seizure law during this century. The reversal of the Wolf decision in Mapp v. Ohio , the impact of Gates on the Aguilar-Spinelli test, and the erosion of the exclusionary rule during the past two decades counsel us against the assumption that the decision in Leon is to be a permanent star in the judicial firmament. Justice Blackmun, concurring in Leon, cautioned us as to the unavoidably provisional nature of the decision, 468 U.S. at 927, 104 S.Ct. at 3424, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 701, and warned that if the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule results in a material change in police compliance with the Fourth Amendment, we shall have to reconsider what we have undertaken here, id. at 928, 104 S.Ct. at 3424, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 702. We suspect that Justice Blackmun's forebodings may be prophetic indeed. In our view, erosion of the probable-cause guarantee will be a corollary to the good-faith exception. We think it quite possible that the damage to the constitutional guarantee may reach such a level as to cause the Court to reconsider its experiment with the fourth amendment. We see no need in New Jersey to experiment with the fundamental rights protected by the fourth-amendment counterpart of our State Constitution. We will not subject the procedures that vindicate the fundamental rights guaranteed by article I, paragraph 7 of our State Constitution  procedures that have not diluted the effectiveness of our criminal justice system  to the uncertain effects that we believe will inevitably accompany the good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule. The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed. HANDLER, J., concurring. Defendant, Ottavio Novembrino, was indicted for possession of controlled dangerous substances and possession of controlled dangerous substances with intent to distribute. He filed a motion to suppress evidence and, as noted in the majority opinion, the suppression hearing resulted in sharply conflicting accounts of the circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest and the subsequent search of his service station. The trial court, however, credited the State's evidence, as did the Appellate Division, and, now, this Court. In spite of the fact that every judge who reviewed the issuance of the search warrant and examined the evidence surrounding the search and seizure in this case accepted the State's version, each reached the same conclusion  that the State failed to demonstrate probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant. I concur in the unanimous determination that there was no probable cause in this case. Further, I join the majority in its conclusion that evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant issued without probable cause must be excluded notwithstanding the executing officer's subjective good faith in relying upon the warrant; in a case such as this, the judicially-devised exclusionary rule must be applied to vindicate the underlying constitutional interest. However, I break rank with the Court when it expresses an additional reason for reaching this result, namely, that the exclusionary rule itself is a constitutional right directly protected under the State Constitution.