Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Ebron

Decided: January 21, 1971.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
WILLIAM B. EBRON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Kilkenny, Halpern and Lane.

Per Curiam

[113 NJSuper Page 153] Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of a four count indictment under N.J.S.A. 24:18-4.

He was sentenced to the New Jersey Reformatory for Males and fined $100.

On January 4, 1968 officers from the Newark Narcotic Squad executed a search warrant at premises located at 86 West Kinney Street. In the basement apartment, in which the defendant was in bed, they found a quantity of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and methadone. They also found hypodermic needles with syringes and some Tuinal capsules.

Before the trial the defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the execution of the search warrant, arguing, among other things, that probable cause had not been shown for the issuance of the search warrant. The motion was denied.

The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was made by Arthur Gockeler, a member of the Narcotic Squad. He stated:

I Arthur Gockeler, have just and reasonable cause to suspect and believe that the following goods, to wit, narcotic drugs, and paraphernalia used in connection with the sale or possession of narcotics are concealed in the premises known and designated as 86 W. Kinney St., whole house, City of Newark, and I have further just and reasonable cause to suspect and believe that the aforesaid premises is being used in connection with a violation of law commonly known and stated as the sale or possession of narcotics, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.

And the deponent states that the statement above recited is based upon the following facts.

1. I have received information from reliable sources and also from an informer who has proved reliable in the past that William and Sandy Ebron are selling narcotics from their mother, Emma Dee Lynn's house at 86 W. Kinney St. Mrs. Lynn is currently appealing a [ sic ] 8-10 year jail sentence for possession of narcotics.

2. The undersigned in company with Dets. Wainen, Jackson, Decker, Petrillo and Pariso, surveilled the premises at 86 W. Kinney St., on the following dates: Jan. 2, 1968 from 1:00 P.M. to 3:30 P.M., Jan. 3, 1968 from 12:00 P.M. to 2:30 P.M. and on Jan. 4, 1968 from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. During these times known narcotic offenders observed entering and leaving these premises were: Ruby Gunther, NR# 388, Yvonne Raddals, NR# 1690, Willa Mae Dungee, NR# 369, Ella Langry, NR# 1368, Charles Dunn NR# 581, Martha Dennis, NR# 1567, and William Levinson NR# 50.

On the basis of the facts disclosed above deponent states that he has ample reason to believe that the premises known and designated as 86 W. Kinney St., whole house, is being used in violation of law commonly known and stated as the sale or possession of narcotic drugs, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.

We realize that the County Court in considering the motion to suppress was required to pay substantial deference to the finding of probable cause made by the magistrate. State v. Kasabucki , 52 N.J. 110, 117 (1968). We approach the consideration of whether probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant with full deference to the philosophy expressed in State v. Davis , 50 N.J. 16 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 1054, 88 S. Ct. 805, 19 L. Ed. 2d 852 (1968). Our scrutiny, however, must be directed to whether a proper showing of probable cause was made to the magistrate to justify the issuance of the search warrant under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961); Robb v. Connolly , 111 U.S. 624, 637, 4 S. Ct. 544, 551, 28 L. Ed. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.