State v. Levesque
Decision Date | 24 January 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-093,82-093 |
Citation | 123 N.H. 52,455 A.2d 1045 |
Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. John D. LEVESQUE. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Gregory H. Smith, Atty. Gen. (Brian T. Tucker, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief and orally), for the State.
Diversified Legal Services P.A., Concord (Mark M. Rufo, Concord, on the brief and orally), for defendant.
This case involving a warrantless inventory search comes before us on an interlocutory transfer without ruling from Superior Court (DiClerico, J.). The defendant was indicted for possession of more than one pound of marijuana, RSA 318-B:26 I(c) (Supp.1981), and for possession of LSD, RSA 318-B:26 I(a)(2) (Supp.1981). The marijuana and LSD were found as a result of a search warrant based upon information obtained from the warrantless inventory search.
The issues are: (1) whether the warrantless search of an unlocked part of a briefcase in the defendant's possession when he was taken into custody, violated the defendant's rights under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and part one, article nineteen of the New Hampshire Constitution; and (2) whether the warrant that was issued for the search of the locked portion of that container could still be considered valid on the basis that the untainted information contained in the affidavit established probable cause for the warrant to issue.
We hold that the inventory search of the unlocked portion of the briefcase was proper and that the warrant to search the locked portion of that briefcase was valid.
The defendant, John D. Levesque, was stopped by a Concord police officer for speeding. Upon inquiry, the defendant identified himself as Wayne Demers, and he informed the police officer that the car he was driving did not belong to him and that he did not have his driver's license with him. The officer advised the defendant that he had been stopped because he was speeding and requested that the defendant remain in the vehicle.
The police officer returned to his cruiser and undertook a license and registration check. While in the process of making these checks, the officer noticed that the defendant was outside the car and that the hood of the vehicle was up. The officer left his cruiser to order the defendant to get back inside the car. As he was approaching the car, the police officer observed the defendant take a vinyl briefcase from the other occupants of the vehicle, tuck the briefcase under his arm, and run towards a nearby line of trees.
At this point, the officer radioed headquarters and then proceeded to give chase on foot. As the officer pursued the defendant, the defendant stumbled and fell. The briefcase either fell or was thrown out of the defendant's hand. The police officer caught up with the defendant, drew his revolver, and ordered the defendant to step aside from the briefcase. The defendant was taken into custody for resisting arrest and then driven to the police station where he was given his Miranda warnings, and he elected to remain silent.
During the booking process, the Concord police learned that the defendant's name was John Levesque, not Wayne Demers, that he was wanted in Florida for a probation violation, and that he was under indictment in Hillsborough County for certain drug-related offenses. As part of the booking process and in accordance with standard departmental policy, an inventory was undertaken of everything that the defendant was carrying on his person, and an inventory search was conducted of the closed but unlocked side pocket of the briefcase. The locked portion of the briefcase was not searched at this time.
The inventory search of the unlocked side pocket revealed eighteen packages of cigarette rolling papers, four empty plastic bags, a one-half inch brown vial, a pocket-size index, matches, and three piece of paper with names, phone numbers, and dollar amounts written on them. Based on these contents of the closed but unlocked portion of the briefcase, the defendant's suspicious activities immediately prior to his arrest, and the fact that the defendant was known to authorities to be heavily involved in drug activities, the Concord police applied for a warrant to search the locked portion of the briefcase. The search warrant was issued, and the locked portion of the briefcase revealed more than one pound of marijuana and a quantity of LSD, the possession of which forms the basis of the charges against the defendant.
To understand the role and purpose of an inventory search, we must first look beyond appellate cases and examine the post-arrest procedures utilized at a police station. The "textbook solution" in proper jail management is that International City Management Association, Municipal Management Series, Local Government Police Management 483 (1977). As part of the booking process, the inventory of property is described as follows:
Id. Likewise, a widely used book on the law of arrest notes:
E. Fisher, Laws of Arrest § 155, at 341 (1967).
E. Fisher, Search and Seizure § 41, at 71 (1970).
While some courts distinguish the on-scene search at the time and place of a defendant's arrest from the jailer's search, State v. Stevens, 26 Wis.2d 451, 459-60, 132 N.W.2d 502, 507 (1965), other courts construe the latter as an extension of the former:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Levesque
...convicted for dealing drugs on the basis of his recollection of a recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, see State v. Levesque, 123 N.H. 52, 455 A.2d 1045 (1983), wherein Levesque had been indicted on drug charges and had unsuccessfully raised, upon interlocutory transfer, search and ......
-
State v. Canelo
...a search based on less than probable cause will not be deemed unreasonable under part I, article 19. See, e.g., State v. Levesque, 123 N.H. 52, 56, 455 A.2d 1045, 1047 (1983) (approving inventory searches); State v. Radziewicz, 122 N.H. 205, 210, 443 A.2d 142, 146 (1982) (approving searches......
-
Wooldridge v. State
...of locked containers.2 (Opening of containers permissible) People v. Guy, 118 Mich.App. 99, 324 N.W.2d 547 (1982); State v. Levesque, 123 N.H. 52, 455 A.2d 1045 (1983); State v. Beaucage, --- R.I. ---, 424 A.2d 642 (1981); State v. Crabtree, 618 P.2d 484 (Utah 1980); Hamby v. Commonwealth, ......
-
State v. Murray, 90-213
...(1977); State v. Maxfield, 121 N.H. 103, 427 A.2d 12 (1981); State v. Cimino, 126 N.H. 570, 493 A.2d 1197 (1985); and State v. Levesque, 123 N.H. 52, 455 A.2d 1045 (1983). Each of these cases is easily distinguished from the case at hand. First, Levesque involved an inventory search pursuan......