State v. Sterndale
| Decision Date | 23 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-820,93-820 |
| Citation | 656 A.2d 409,139 N.H. 445 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Kimberly STERNDALE. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Jeffrey R. Howard, Atty. Gen. (Cynthia L. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief and orally), for State.
Kinghorn & Maynard, P.A., Nashua, (Eric R. Wilson on the brief and orally), for defendant.
In this interlocutory transfer, the State appeals a ruling of the Superior Court (Murphy, J.) granting the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence. The State argues that the search that uncovered the evidence was proper: (1) as a search incident to arrest; (2) under the exigent circumstances exception to the State constitutional warrant requirement; or (3) under the automobile exception to the State constitutional warrant requirement. We affirm and remand.
On April 26, 1993, Officer Kirk Gautier of the Nashua Police Department was on routine patrol in a marked police cruiser. At approximately 6:40 p.m., Officer Gautier observed an automobile make an abrupt turn without using its directional signal. Gautier followed the car and estimated its speed to be forty-two miles per hour. He activated the blue lights atop his police cruiser, and the vehicle slowed down but did not stop immediately. Gautier observed the driver, the sole occupant of the car, bend down and to the right and return to an upright position. Gautier then saw the driver turn to the right, grab a brown object and place it toward the rear of the vehicle.
The automobile Gautier was following came to a stop at the intersection of Walnut and High Streets in Nashua. Officer Gautier approached the car and asked the driver, the defendant, for her license and registration. She responded that she had neither, at which point Gautier explained that he had stopped her for speeding. While speaking with the defendant, Gautier detected what he believed to be the odor of burning or burnt marijuana, which he brought to her attention. The defendant, according to Officer Gautier, admitted that she had just smoked a "joint," or marijuana cigarette.
Gautier then asked the defendant what she had put under the seat when she bent down and to the right. The defendant replied that she had not put anything under the seat. Thereupon the officer directed the defendant to exit the vehicle and step to the sidewalk with him, where they were met by Officer George McCarthy, who had arrived at the scene to assist Officer Gautier. While the defendant waited with Officer McCarthy, Officer Gautier returned to the defendant's car and looked under the passenger seat, where he found an ashtray containing partially burnt marijuana cigarettes, colloquially known as "roaches." Gautier confronted the defendant with the roaches and placed her under arrest. The defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of Officer Gautier's cruiser.
After thus securing the defendant, Gautier returned to her vehicle and saw through the window a brown paper bag, apparently the item he had seen the defendant place behind her. Officer Gautier leaned inside the car, opened the paper bag, and found four clear, plastic bags containing what he believed to be marijuana. This evidence was suppressed by the superior court.
The State predicates its arguments against suppression solely on part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution, as this was the basis of the superior court's ruling. Therefore, we base our decision on State constitutional law, citing federal cases only as an analytical aid. State v. Baroudi, 137 N.H. 62, 64, 623 A.2d 750, 751 (1993). Under the New Hampshire Constitution, all warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless they conform to the narrow confines of a judicially recognized exception. State v. Gallant, 133 N.H. 138, 144, 574 A.2d 385, 389 (1990). Absent a warrant, the burden is on the State to prove that the search was valid pursuant to one of these exceptions. State v. Murray, 135 N.H. 369, 374, 605 A.2d 676, 679 (1992).
The State argues that the warrantless search of the brown paper bag was proper as a search incident to a valid arrest. Our decision on this issue is controlled by Murray. In that case, we held that the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant clause of part I, article 19 requires both temporal and spacial proximity to the arrest and applies only to "those items within the defendant's immediate control." Id. This is because such a search is limited by the exception's very specific justifications: the need to prevent harm to the arresting officer; the State interest in preventing the destruction of evidence; and the concern that the arrestee may obtain the elements of escape. Id.
In the instant case, the defendant was secured, in handcuffs, in the rear of a police cruiser, with two Nashua Police officers on the scene. As in Murray, where the defendant was out of her vehicle and in an ambulance, the legitimate law-enforcement concerns underlying the search incident exception plainly were not present in this case. Since the search was made only after the defendant was securely in custody and unable to gain access to the vehicle, it was not justifiable as a search incident to arrest. Id. at 374-75, 605 A.2d at 680. We note that this warrant exception, if construed broadly, could invite pretextual searches, as law enforcement officials in New Hampshire have the statutory ability to arrest individuals for minor traffic violations. See RSA 594:10, I(a) (1986). Thus, police could arrest an individual for speeding, secure that individual in handcuffs and, without probable cause, search his or her vehicle, were we to endorse the State's interpretation of the search incident exception.
The State also argues that the search was permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the constitutional warrant requirement. This argument, however, was not raised before the trial court and thus will not be considered on appeal. State v. Horne, 136 N.H. 348, 349, 615 A.2d 1251, 1252 (1992). The State's objection to the defendant's motion to suppress states that "the patrolman was justified in making a further search [after finding the roaches] under the 'search incident to arrest' exception to the warrant requirement which led to his discovery of marijuana in the back seat." "Exigency" was mentioned in the objection only with respect to the roaches.
Similarly, at the suppression hearing before the superior court, exigency was not raised as a warrant exception justifying the search of the brown paper bag. The following exchange took place between the court and the prosecutor:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...1285 (2002). Finally, New Hampshire does not recognize an automobile exception under its state constitution at all. State v. Sterndale, 139 N.H. 445, 449, 656 A.2d 409 (1995). Although, in some circumstances, we have deviated from federal precedent in interpreting our state search and seizu......
-
State v. Williams
...1285 (2002). Finally, New Hampshire does not recognize an automobile exception under its state constitution at all. State v. Sterndale, 139 N.H. 445, 449, 656 A.2d 409 (1995). Although, in some circumstances, we have deviated from federal precedent in interpreting our state search and seizu......
-
State v. Brown
...of state constitutions. For example, the New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected the automobile exception in State v. Sterndale , 139 N.H. 445, 656 A.2d 409, 411–12 (N.H. 1995), abrogated in part on other grounds by State v. Goss , 150 N.H. 46, 834 A.2d 316, 318–19 (N.H. 2003), as recognized i......
-
State v. Gaskins
...it was created to serve.” State v. McGrane, 733 N.W.2d 671, 677 (Iowa 2007) ; accord Vance, 790 N.W.2d at 786–87 ; State v. Sterndale, 139 N.H. 445, 656 A.2d 409, 410 (1995) (noting the proper scope of a SITA “is limited by the exception's very specific justifications”); State v. Valdez, 16......
-
Toward the decentralization of criminal procedure: state constitutional law and selective disincorporation.
...(La. 1982); People v. Ragland, 385 N.W.2d 772, 774 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986); State v. Greenwald, 858 P.2d 36 (Nev. 1993), State v. Sterndale, 656 A.2d 409, 411-12 (N.H. 1995); State v. Pierce, 642 A.2d 947, 959 (NJ. 1994); People v. Blasich, 541 N.E.2d 40, 43 (N.Y. 1989) (dicta); State v. Kunk......
-
Social Capital and Protecting the Rights of the Accused in the American States
...77 (Ind. 1995); Fletcher v. State, 990 P.2d500 U.S. 565, 111 S. Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) 192 (Nev. 1999); State v. Sterndale, 139 N.H. 445, 656 A.2d 409 (1995); State v. Young,87 N.J. 132, 432 A.2d 874 (1981); State v. Gomez, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1 (1999);State v. Kock,302 Or. 29,......
-
§ 13.01 AUTOMOBILE SEARCH WARRANT EXCEPTION: GENERAL RULES
...under the state constitution, State v. Miller, 630 A.2d 1315 (Conn. 1993); State v. Elison, 14 P.3d 456 (Mont. 2000); State v. Sterndale, 656 A.2d 409 (N.H. 1995); State v. Cooke, 751 A.2d 92 (N.J. 2000); State v. Kock, 725 P.2d 1285 (Or. 1986); State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990) (p......
-
§ 13.01 Automobile Search Warrant Exception: General Rules
...under the state constitution, State v. Miller, 630 A.2d 1315 (Conn. 1993); State v. Elison, 14 P.3d 456 (Mont. 2000); State v. Sterndale, 656 A.2d 409 (N.H. 1995); State v. Cooke, 751 A.2d 92 (N.J. 2000); State v. Kock, 725 P.2d 1285 (Or. 1986); State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990) (p......