State v. Brown, 93-134
| Citation | 640 A.2d 286,138 N.H. 407 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-134,93-134 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Matthew A. BROWN and another. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Jeffrey R. Howard, Atty. Gen. (Brian R. Graf, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief and orally), for State.
Stephen T. Jeffco, P.A., Portsmouth (Stephen T. Jeffco, on the joint brief), for defendant Matthew A. Brown and Hawthorne and Brown, Somersworth (Stan Hawthorne, on joint brief and orally), for defendant Dana Sullivan.
The defendants, Matthew A. Brown and Dana Sullivan, were charged with drug-related offenses. Brown filed a motion to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest, arguing that the arrest lacked probable cause. Sullivan joined in this motion. The Superior Court (Dickson, J.), after a consolidated hearing, granted the motion to suppress, which ruling the State now appeals. We reverse.
The trial court found the following facts in its order granting the motion to suppress. Dover Police Officer Thomas Stinglen received information from a confidential informant that Sullivan was involved in selling and distributing cocaine. The informant, at Officer Stinglen's request, set up a meeting with Sullivan to purchase cocaine from him. Officer Stinglen accompanied the informant to the arranged meeting site. For his safety, Officer Stinglen was wearing a body wire to keep back-up officers located nearby apprised of what was happening. Defendant Sullivan arrived shortly thereafter in a truck, and agreed to sell an eighth of an ounce of cocaine to Officer Stinglen and the informant. He then left to retrieve the cocaine. After about fifteen minutes, Sullivan returned, accompanied by defendant Brown. Officer Stinglen and the informant had a short conversation with the defendants through the open window of their truck during which Sullivan and Brown each told Stinglen that they would only deal with the informant. Officer Stinglen had handed the money to Sullivan during the conversation, but after Sullivan refused to deal with anyone other than the informant, Stinglen took the money back and returned to his car. Officer Stinglen gave the informant the money and saw the informant reach into the truck to transfer it to the defendants, but did not see any actual transfer.
At this time, the back-up units arrived on the scene and arrested both Brown and Sullivan. Detective Colarusso, one of the back-up officers, made the decision and gave the order to make the arrest. He was not instructed to do so by Officer Stinglen.
The following additional evidence was presented at the suppression hearing. Officer Stinglen testified that when Sullivan left to get the cocaine, Stinglen informed Detective Colarusso what was taking place, including that Sullivan was leaving the area but would return. After Sullivan refused to deal with Officer Stinglen and after Stinglen got back into his car, he asked Sullivan if they had the cocaine, and he replied that they did. Officer Stinglen testified that this information was relayed to Detective Colarusso, immediately after which Colarusso and the other officers moved in to make the arrest.
Officer Anderson, a back-up officer in the surveillance car with Detective Colarusso, testified that the officers in that car could hear a portion of the conversations between Stinglen and the defendants via the body wire, that he overheard a conversation between Stinglen and defendant Sullivan concerning a drug deal being made, and that he understood that the cocaine was "supposedly in the truck." Officer Anderson also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cobb
...and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act." State v. Brown , 138 N.H. 407, 409, 640 A.2d 286, 288 (1994) (quotation omitted). Even assuming, without deciding, that the police were required to present evidence of attempted k......
-
State v. Westover, 94-064
...discard his sweatshirt." We will not disturb the lower court finding of fact unless it is clearly erroneous. See State v. Brown, 138 N.H. 407, 409, 640 A.2d 286, 287 (1994). The test for whether an individual has abandoned property involves a "focus on the intent of the person who is allege......
-
Com. v. Federici
...to warrant a person of reasonable caution and prudence in believing that the arrestee has committed an offense." State v. Brown, 138 N.H. 407, 409, 640 A.2d 286 (1994), quoting State v. Vachon, supra. There was probable cause for the officers to believe the defendant had committed a felony.......
-
State v. Conant, 94-006
...the interception. A trial court's findings on reasonable suspicion will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Cf. State v. Brown, 138 N.H. 407, 409, 640 A.2d 286, 287 (1994) (appellate review of probable cause Under RSA 570-A:2, II(d), reasonable suspicion exists when "specific and articulabl......