State v. Gates

• Decision Date: 09 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2019-0371,2019-0371
• Citation: 173 N.H. 765,249 A.3d 445
• Parties: The STATE of New Hampshire v. John GATES
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

173 N.H. 765

249 A.3d 445

The STATE of New Hampshire

v.John GATES

No. 2019-0371

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: September 24, 2020

Opinion Issued: December 9, 2020

Gordon J. MacDonald, attorney general (Zachary Lee Higham, attorney, on the brief and orally), for the State.

Christopher M. Johnson, chief appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.

BASSETT, J.

The defendant, John Gates, appeals his convictions for arson, RSA 634:1 (Supp. 2019), attempted arson, two counts of burglary, RSA 635:1 (2016), being a felon in possession of a dangerous weapon, RSA 159:3, I (2014), and use of a Molotov cocktail, RSA 158:37, II (2014). He challenges an order of the Superior Court (Messer, J.) denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained when, without a search warrant, the police entered the vestibule and utility closet of his apartment building located on his family's farm. In the trial court, the defendant argued that the warrantless search violated his rights under Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The trial court applied the two-part framework established in State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 49, 834 A.2d 316 (2003), which provides that, for a warrantless search to be unlawful, an individual must have a legitimate expectation of privacy — both subjective and objective — in the place searched. The trial court found that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in both the vestibule and the utility closet and concluded that the officers’ warrantless entry into those areas was lawful. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred with respect to both rulings. Because we agree with the defendant that, under Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution, he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the utility closet, we reverse and remand.

The following facts are taken from the trial court's order denying the defendant's motion to suppress, are established by the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing, or are otherwise undisputed. On January 17, 2018, at approximately 3:30 a.m., the Kingston Police Department dispatched an officer to the Carriage Town Plaza in Kingston. When that officer arrived on the scene, he observed that the alarm system for one of the buildings in the Carriage Town Plaza was activated and that smoke was emanating from one of the businesses in the Plaza, the Carriage Town Market. A Nor'easter was dropping heavy snow that morning and the officer observed footprints in the snow leading from the Carriage Town Market away from the scene towards nearby Route 125. The officer noticed that the footprints had a distinctive tread mark and were sporadically accompanied by a separate drag mark.

The responding officer was soon joined by a second officer and the two officers followed the footprints as they zig-zagged along and across Route 125 before the officers lost the trail. The second officer eventually relocated the trail of footprints near a farm (hereinafter referred to as "the farm property" or "the property"). He identified the tracks as a continuation of the footprints from the Carriage Town Market based on the matching tread, gait, and sporadic accompanying drag mark.

The officers continued to follow the footprints as they crossed onto the front of the farm property, which is a large plot of land owned and occupied by one extended family. A driveway enters the property from Route 125 and runs past several buildings.

The property owner and his wife reside in a house that is close to Route 125. Beyond the house are two greenhouses and a farm stand and behind those buildings is a barn. Finally, beyond the barn, in the "back corner," is the two-story apartment building where the defendant resided.

The apartment building is built into a slope such that the front door faces Route 125 and provides an entrance to the second floor of the building. The back door of the building provides access to the first floor. The apartment building has two units on the first floor and additional units on the second floor. All of the units in the apartment building were rented by members of the owner's family, including the defendant and his mother.

The officers followed the footprints onto the farm property, past the house and the greenhouses and farm stand, and then around the barn to a car parked near the rear of the apartment building. They observed three exterior doors, with a shoveled stone walkway leading to the center door. The footprints led from the car towards the building and disappeared at the beginning of the walkway.

At approximately 4:30 a.m., a third officer, who was somewhat familiar with the farm property, arrived at the scene. The officers approached the center exterior door, which had a glass window. The officers looked through the window and observed an illuminated vestibule area with three unmarked doors — one door to the left, one in the center, and one to the right. Finding the exterior door unlocked, the three officers entered the vestibule.

Once inside, the officers observed that the vestibule was barely large enough for the three of them to share the space, and that it contained a coat rack and a shovel leaning against the back wall. The officers knocked on the door to the left and an individual, later identified as the defendant, answered. The officers identified themselves and explained to the defendant that they were investigating a fire that had occurred at the Carriage Town Plaza. The defendant told the officers he was the sole occupant of his apartment and that his elderly mother lived in the apartment across the hall. He also explained that he had recently left his apartment to shovel the walkway. The officers requested that the defendant identify the shoes that he had been wearing when he shoveled the walkway and asked to see them. The defendant replied that he had been wearing sneakers when shoveling. He then allowed the officers to examine a pair of sneakers and a pair of boots. Both pairs were dry.

While two officers continued questioning the defendant, another officer approached the center door, found it unlocked, and opened it to look for a stairwell leading to the second-floor apartments. Using his flashlight to illuminate the dark room, the officer realized that he had entered a utility closet, rather than a stairwell. He took two or three steps into the room and observed that it contained a water heater, oil tanks, and electrical panels. As he turned to exit, the officer noticed a pair of wet boots behind the door to the vestibule. The officer picked up the boots, exited the utility closet, and asked the defendant if the boots belonged to him. The defendant denied owning the boots and insisted that they belonged to a cousin who was not present at the time. The defendant then allowed the officer to seize the boots. The officers later concluded that the tread pattern on the boots matched the footprints in the snow leading from the Carriage Town Market to the apartment building.

A grand jury indicted the defendant on multiple charges arising out of the fire at the Carriage Town Market. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence that the officers obtained as a result of their warrantless entry into the vestibule and utility closet. The Trial Court (Anderson, J.) held a two-day evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion, during which the State called three witnesses — the three officers who entered the vestibule — and offered no exhibits into evidence.¹

The Trial Court (Messer, J.) denied the defendant's motion to suppress. With respect to the vestibule, the court found that the defendant had not exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy and, even if he had, any expectation of privacy in the vestibule was not objectively reasonable. Regarding the utility closet, the court concluded that, even if the defendant possessed a subjective expectation of privacy in that location, that expectation was not objectively reasonable. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to reconsider. After a seven-day jury trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of all charges. This appeal followed.

"When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court's factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous, and we review its legal conclusions de novo." State v. Smith, 169 N.H. 602, 607, 154 A.3d 660 (2017) (quotation omitted). Because the defendant did not renew his motion to suppress at trial, "we limit our review to the suppression record upon which the trial court based its decision." State v. Gonzalez, 143 N.H. 693, 697, 738 A.2d 1247 (1999). The defendant cites both the State and the Federal Constitutions in challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Following our standard practice, we first address the defendant's claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis. State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33, 471 A.2d 347 (1983).

Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "[e]very subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions." N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 19. "Evidence that is obtained in violation of Part I, Article 19 may be subject to exclusion from evidence in a criminal trial." State v. Boyer, 168 N.H. 553, 557, 133 A.3d 262 (2016) (quotation omitted).

"When determining whether a warrantless search may give rise to a violation of the State Constitution, we apply an expectation of privacy analysis." State v. Bazinet, 170 N.H. 680, 684, 184 A.3d 448 (2018) (quotation omitted). Without an invasion of the defendant's legitimate expectation of privacy, there has been no violation of the defendant's rights under Part I, Article 19. Id. To determine whether the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy, we...