On leave granted, the court was asked to determine whether three allegedly incorrect dates contained in a certification in lieu of oath, submitted pursuant to Rule 1:4-4(b) that rendered the subsequently issued search warrants stale, should have been corrected by the motion court as typographical errors to defeat a motion to suppress evidence, or whether an evidentiary hearing should have taken place to determine whether the dates in the certification were erroneous. The State argues it should be allowed to introduce evidence not presented to the issuing judge to prove the controlled drug buys relied upon in the certification took place in 2023, not 2022. It also contends the errors were so obvious the issuing judge may have assumed the events in fact took place in 2023 and found probable cause to issue the warrants.
The court rejected both arguments and affirmed the suppression of the evidence. It concluded the issuing judge had no basis to issue the warrants because nothing contained within the four corners of the certification indicated the dates were typographical errors. On its face, the certification did not demonstrate probable cause to search because it was based on stale information. Also, only information presented to the issuing judge could have been considered by a reviewing court, and the State was barred from introducing extrinsic evidence beyond the four corners of the warrant application. In so concluding, the court reiterated New Jersey does not recognize an officer's good faith alone as an exception to the warrant requirement and cautioned that precision is essential in any ex parte application where a person's constitutionally protected privacy interests are at stake. To overlook the State's responsibility in preparing and reviewing the certification would "inevitably and inexorably diminish the quality of evidence presented in search-warrant applications." SeeState v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 153 (1987).