TRENTON — In a ruling that strengthens "the right to walk freely on the streets of a city," the New Jersey Supreme Court said today that police were wrong to arrest a man for leaning on a private porch in a high-crime area.

Police later discovered 13 bags of crack cocaine on David M. Gibson, but the search that uncovered those drugs and Gibson's arrest were both unconstitutional, the high court ruled in a 6-0 decision citing privacy rights in the state and federal constitutions.

The justices ordered a new trial for Gibson, who has been imprisoned since 2010. The drugs Gibson was carrying cannot be used as evidence against him because they were seized illegally, Justice Barry Albin wrote for the court.

"The right to walk freely on the streets of a city without fear of arbitrary arrest is one of the guarantees protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution" and the state constitution, Albin wrote.

The case began in 2007, when a police officer arrested Gibson for trespass in Burlington City around 3 a.m. after spotting him leaning against the porch of a community center that had a "no loitering" sign posted on the window. A later search at the stationhouse revealed crack cocaine in "clear plastic bags."

The state attorney general argued that the "no loitering" sign gave Gibson sufficient warning that he could be arrested for trespass.

But Albin wrote that loitering and trespassing are two different things, and in any case, Gibson started walking down the street once he saw the police. Officer Wayne Comegno arrested him a block away from the Omega Community Center, according to the court record.

"The officer did not see Gibson engaged in any illegal activity," Albin wrote. "Gibson’s observed conduct hardly fits the commonly understood meaning of loitering — remaining in a place in an idle manner, hanging around, lingering aimlessly, or loafing."

He continued: "The constitutional right to be free from arbitrary arrest is not suspended in high-crime neighborhoods where ordinary citizens live and walk at all hours of the day and night. Momentarily leaning against a building, or an upraised porch, on a city block, would not be considered loitering to an objectively reasonable citizen."

Prosecutors argued that Gibson's conduct was suspicious enough for an arrest, given the high crime in the area and prior complaints from Omega Community Center about trespassers. Comegno added in court testimony that Gibson seemed "very excited" and "somewhat evasive" when questioned and did not give a "lawful reason" for leaning on the porch.

The high court disagreed, finding that Gibson gave an adequate explanation when he told the police he had just finished visiting his child's mother nearby and was "waiting for a ride."

"No one can quarrel with the officer’s decision to approach Gibson and ask him some questions," the court said, but an arrest was excessive because "Gibson explained why he was on the street at that hour," among other reasons.

"An officer’s subjective, good-faith hunch does not justify an investigatory stop — even if that hunch proves correct," the court ruled.

Peter Aseltine, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, said today they were "disappointed" with the ruling but that cases like Gibson's — which hinge on the difference between a "no loitering" and a "no trespassing" sign — are very rare.

Aseltine said the court's ruling came with a silver lining for law enforcement officers, clarifying that police may search suspects for weapons at their headquarters after an arrest.

"The court explained that police have the authority to ensure, at headquarters, that a person under arrest is not armed with a weapon," Aseltine said.

Gibson's attorney, public defender Alyssa Aiello, did not respond to a request for comment today.

RELATED COVERAGE

• Privacy rights a key issue for N.J. Supreme Court

• More Politics

FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER POLITICS: TWITTER | FACEBOOK