COURT SAYS INFORMANT'S TIP DIDN'T JUSTIFY POLICE SEARCH

The state's highest court Thursday handed a victory to a man arrested
for marijuana possession five years ago, ruling that Wayne police
lacked sufficient cause to pull him over and search his car on the
basis of a general tip from an informant.

Rather, the Supreme Court ruled, police must first have detailed,
specific information from a tipster who can be shown to be reliable
before searching a suspect.

Court papers say that on July 26, 1993, Wayne police arrested Joseph
Zutic of Kinnelon after a tip from a what they termed a "reliable
informant," who described Zutic's car and license plate. The person
said Zutic had bought drugs in New York City and would be coming back
up Route 23.

An officer set up surveillance and eventually arrested Zutic and
charged him with several drug offenses after 15 grams of marijuana
were found stuffed in Zutic's pants. Zutic was convicted in Municipal
Court and was fined $1,000 and had his license suspended for a year.

But defense attorney Matthew Priore argued successfully before the
state Supreme Court in January that the police needed more detailed
information to search Zutic and seize the drugs.

The court said the police need to offer more proof that the informant
is reliable and also that the informant needs to give more detailed
information about the target's alleged illegal activity. Because the
court ruled that police didn't have probable cause to search the
vehicle, they cannot use the drugs -- the only evidence -- in a trial
against Zutic.

Zutic could not be reached for comment. His sentence had been stayed
pending the appeal.

"This case is about what kind of tip the police need to stop and
search a vehicle," said Priore. "A police officer can't rely on an
non-specific tip. They have to have hard, intimate, hard-to-know
details about the criminal act . . . before they can stop and search
someone."

Priore said the court's ruling may help another of his clients -- a
Bergen County man who was arrested with crack cocaine and marijuana
after his disgruntled girlfriend tipped off police.

"This is important because without it, you could basically just call
in someone's name, give a general description, and the police can stop
and search them," he said. "This requires much more specific
information. It requires the police to do police investigations
instead of just relying on the tip."

Gary Schlyen, the Passaic County chief assistant prosecutor who argued
the case, said he doesn't believe the court's ruling makes new law --
just applies current law to the facts of the Zutic case.

"We felt that the information the police officer had was sufficient,"
he said.

Schlyen said the ruling would only affect police work by compelling
officers to cull more information from their sources before setting up
surveillance.

"They'll start asking more questions," he said. "If a call comes in to
headquarters, they'll make sure to get as much information as they
can, more specifics."

The state Attorney General's Office also presented arguments on the
Zutic case. Anne Paskow, the assistant attorney general and chief of
the appellate bureau, said she believes the police had enough detail
from the informant for probable cause to search the car.

"This doesn't even mean that there wasn't enough detailed information
available, just that the police didn't ask for it," Paskow said. "It
doesn't mean that the informant wasn't reliable, just that they didn't
explain how the person was reliable."

Checked-by: "Rich O'Grady"