State v. Psomiades

• Citation: 658 A.2d 1190,139 N.H. 480
• Decision Date: 21 April 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93-668,93-668
• Parties: The STATE of New Hampshire v. Helen PSOMIADES.
• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Page 1190

658 A.2d 1190

139 N.H. 480

The STATE of New Hampshire v. Helen PSOMIADES.

No. 93-668.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

April 21, 1995.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1995.

Jeffrey R. Howard, Atty. Gen. (John A. Curran, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief and orally), for State.

Joachim H. Barth, Asst. Appellate Defender, Concord, by brief and orally, for defendant.

THAYER, Justice.

The defendant, Helen Psomiades, appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled drug, RSA 318-B:2, I (Supp.1994), based on a jury verdict in the Superior Court (Conboy, J.). She argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress because the police were not authorized to seize property located in her car at the time of her arrest. We affirm.

At approximately 3:00 a.m. on February 14, 1993, the defendant, who was alone in her automobile, was arrested for driving while intoxicated. After arresting the defendant, the police officer handcuffed her and placed her in the rear of his police cruiser. The officer then returned to the defendant's vehicle to secure it. The officer removed a purse that was located on the front seat, turned on the hazard lights, and locked the car doors. The officer's removal of the purse was pursuant to departmental policy to remove any valuables located in plain view when securing an automobile. When the defendant arrived at the police station, the police conducted an inventory search of her purse and discovered illegal narcotics.

The defendant moved to suppress the illegal narcotics, arguing that no applicable exception to the warrant requirement authorized the seizure of her purse. The Superior Court (Hampsey, J.) denied the motion.

The defendant argues that the officer's removal of her purse constituted an unreasonable seizure and violated her rights under part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The defendant does not raise a federal constitutional claim, nor does she contest the inventory search of her purse that occurred at the police station. Her sole argument is that the police officer should not have removed the purse from the car.

Under the New Hampshire Constitution, warrantless seizures are considered per se unreasonable unless they fall "within the narrow confines of a judicially crafted exception." State v. Murray, 135 N.H. 369, 374, 605 A.2d 676, 679 (1992). The burden of proving that the search falls within one of these exceptions rests on the State. Id. In the present case, the trial court ruled that the officer's removal and seizure of the defendant's purse in order to secure the vehicle was appropriate and did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. We agree.

In Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), the United States Supreme Court first recognized the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. In that case, the Court stated that "[l]ocal police ... engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." Id. at 441, 93 S.Ct. at 2528. Other courts have since recognized that in performing their community caretaking functions, the police may make a limited intrusion into an individual's vehicle provided that the intrusion is not a mere pretext to an investigative search. United States v. Scott, 665 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir.1981) (analyzing the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution); Young v. State, 497 So.2d 228, 231 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (analyzing the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution); State v. Tully, 166 Conn. 126, 348 A.2d 603, 610 (1974) (State Constitution interpreted consistent with the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution); State v. Weide, 155 Wis.2d 537, 455 N.W.2d 899, 904 (1990) (State Constitution interpreted consistent with the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution). In the course of their actions, the police may also take appropriate steps to secure the vehicle, including removing an individual's property. See, e.g., Scott, 665 F.2d at 877; United States v. Prazak, 500 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1974); Young, 497 So.2d at 230.

While not explicitly recognizing a "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement, we previously have approved police action that fulfilled this need. See, e.g., State v. Cimino, 126 N.H. 570, 573, 493 A.2d 1197, 1200 (1985) (officer acted properly in...