Court Opinion

ID: 9711165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:25:37.719606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.606166
License: Public Domain

Conford, P. J. A. D.
(temporarily assigned), dissenting. The obviousness of plaintiffs’ need for revelation of the-identity of the informer is so clear that the interests of justice dictate granting their request. Only by examining the informer under ' oath will plaintiffs be able to establish whether or not the flagrant falsities in the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant were deliberate lies on the part of the affiant, the defendant Bickley. If they were, it is manifest that plaintiffs will be in a much stronger position to assert at trial a claim for substantial or punitive damages. Cf. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971). It is even possible that without proof of the deliberate falsity of the affidavit a jury might exculpate defendants entirely as having acted in good faith on mistaken information.
I do not agree with the Court’s statement that plaintiffs’ damages “do not appear to be significant.’’ (p. 143). A breach of privacy in the home through an unconstitutionally illegal search by law enforcement agents per se war*144rants substantial damages. See 3 Restatement, Torts 2d, § 652B at 378 (1977). At least that much is called for on the occasion of such a deliberate and knowing violation of both the state and federal constitutions that, if criminal evidence had been uncovered thereby, it would be suppressed in a criminal trial of an accused under the exclusionary rule. See Franks v. Delaware,- U. S. -, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978). And the probability is that the damages awarded would be magnified if the illegality of the search had been knowing and deliberate on the part of the defendant law enforcement officers. Plaintiffs are entitled to the opportunity to ascertain the facts.
Duly taking into account all the relevant factors discussed in our opinion in Cashen v. Spann, 66 N. J. 541, cert. den. 423 U. S. 829, 96 S. Ct. 48, 46 L. Ed. 2d 46 (1975), it is my view that the Law Division and the Appellate Division correctly concluded that “a fair determination of the issues” calls for revelation to plaintiffs by defendants of the name of the informer. Evid. R. 36: N. J. S. A. 2A:84A — 28. Cf. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53, 77 S. Ct. 623, 1 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1957).
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice Hughes and Justices Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford, Schreiber and Handler — 6'.
For affirmance — Judge Conford — 1.