State v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 30 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-422,81-422 |
| Citation | 122 N.H. 1161,453 A.2d 1319 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Dwight T. REYNOLDS. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Gregory H. Smith, Atty. Gen. (Richard C. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief and Brian T. Tucker, Asst. Atty. Gen., orally), for the State.
James E. Duggan, Appellate Defender, Concord, on the brief and orally for defendant.
Dwight T. Reynolds appeals his conviction of burglary, RSA 635:1 I, on the basis that the Trial Court (Cann, J.) erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his allegedly illegal arrest. The only issue before us on appeal is whether there was probable cause to arrest the defendant. For the reasons which follow, we reverse and remand for retrial in light of this opinion.
On July 28, 1980, Dwight T. Reynolds was hitchhiking on Route 3 in Tilton, toward Franklin and away from Belmont. At approximately 4:20 a.m., Officer Beadle, a Tilton policeman on routine patrol, observed the defendant. At that time, the officer neither stopped the defendant nor made any contact with him. Shortly after observing the defendant, the officer responded to a call to investigate what was reported as vandalism at a gas station in the neighboring town of Belmont.
On his way to Belmont, the officer once again observed the defendant and on this occasion stopped and inquired of the defendant his name and address. This occurred about thirty to forty minutes after he first observed the defendant. The officer testified at the suppression hearing that there was enough light at this time to determine that the defendant was wearing "Jox brand sneakers." The officer continued to the gas station in Belmont where he discovered there had been a burglary rather than just damage from vandalism. After viewing the evidence of the burglary, the officer returned westerly on Route 3 in order to locate the defendant. Upon finding him, the officer asked Reynolds his age, and again observed his apparel including his footwear.
The officer then returned to the gas station where he inspected the money bags lying on the floor. On one of the money bags, he noticed a sneaker print which he thought appeared to have been made by a Jox brand sneaker. The officer's knowledge of athletic foot gear had been gleaned from personal experience as a runner. The officer immediately returned to locate the defendant on Route 3. During this encounter, the officer asked the defendant to permit him to look at the sneakers, explaining that he did not have to comply with the request. The defendant showed the officer the bottom of the sneakers which Beadle observed to be "just like" the print on the money bag at the scene. At this point, the defendant was arrested for the burglary of the gas station.
The defendant was later indicted for burglary. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence allegedly obtained as a result of his illegal arrest which was denied by the presiding judge. Specifically, the defendant sought to exclude from evidence the sneakers he was wearing at the time of the arrest and evidence derived from them. At the trial which followed, one of the defendant's sneakers was introduced into evidence and a criminologist testified that he had examined the sneaker and the imprint on the money bag and concluded the sneaker had made the imprint. The jury found the defendant guilty.
RSA 594:10 II (b) provides that an arrest without a warrant is lawful when a peace officer "has reasonable ground to believe that the person arrested has committed a felony." Reasonable ground and probable cause are synonymous. State v. Hutton, 108 N.H. 279, 287, 235 A.2d 117, 122 (1967). Probable cause for arrest has been found to exist where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, would warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested had committed or was committing a crime. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176-77, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); see State v. Birmingham, 122 N.H. ---, ---, --- A.2d ----, ----, (decided this date); State v. Lemire, 121 N.H. 1, 4-5, 424 A.2d 1135, 1138 (1981).
In determining probable cause to arrest, we are dealing with only reasonable probabilities; probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. at 175-76, 69 S.Ct. at 1310-11; cf. State v. Fogg, 410 A.2d 548, 550 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kay v. Bruno, Civ. No. 84-679-D.
...cause requires only a showing of reasonable probabilities, as proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. State v. Reynolds, 122 N.H. 1161, 1163, 453 A.2d 1319, 1320 (1982). False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual's personal freedom, Welch v. Bergeron, 115 N.H. 17......
-
State v. Vandebogart
...(1964) (defendant's criminal record and physical description, standing alone, cannot support probable cause); State v. Reynolds, 122 N.H. 1161, 1164, 453 A.2d 1319, 1321 (1982) (same brand of tennis shoes alone not enough to support probable cause) with State v. Lemire, 121 N.H. 1, 5, 424 A......
-
Bleish v. Moriarty
..."[p]robable cause and 'reasonable ground' are synonymous," Kay v. Bruno, 605 F. Supp. 767, 773 (citing RSA 594:10, I; State v. Reynolds, 122 N.H. 1161, 1163 (1982)); see also State v. Hutton, 108 N.H. 279, 287 (1967) ("The terms 'reasonable ground' and 'probable cause' . . . mean substantia......
-
State v. Kellenbeck, 83-128
...warrant. We hold, under the New Hampshire Constitution, part I, article 19, that it is not. The State argues that State v. Reynolds, 122 N.H. 1161, 453 A.2d 1319 (1982), which held that one non-distinctive footprint made by a popular brand of running shoe was insufficient to support probabl......