State Criminal Motion to Suppress - New Hampshire

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[COUNTY] COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

[DATE]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction and Relief Requested
2. Procedural Posture
3. Statement of Facts

4. Governing Law and Legal Standards
   4.1 Constitutional Protections
   4.2 Search Warrant Requirements Under RSA 595-A
   4.3 New Hampshire Does Not Recognize a Good-Faith Exception

5. Argument
   5.1 The Search Was Conducted Without a Valid Warrant
   5.2 Absence of Probable Cause or Exigent Circumstances
   5.3 The Evidence Is the Fruit of an Unlawful Search
   5.4 No Good-Faith Exception Is Available Under State v. Canelo

6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

7. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
8. Certificate of Service
9. Signature Block

1. INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

COMES NOW the Defendant, [DEFENDANT NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Rule 15 of the New Hampshire Rules of Criminal Procedure, to suppress all physical and testimonial evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of Defendant's [vehicle / residence / person] on [date]. The evidence sought to be suppressed includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. [Item 1]
2. [Item 2]
3. All statements made by Defendant subsequent to the unlawful search and seizure.

2. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

1. On [date], Defendant was charged by [complaint / information / indictment] with [list charges].
2. Arraignment occurred on [date], at which time Defendant entered a plea of [not guilty].
3. Discovery produced by the State on [date] revealed that the evidence referenced above was obtained through a warrantless [search / seizure].
4. This Motion is timely under N.H. R. Crim. P. 15(b)(1), which requires that motions to suppress evidence in Superior Court be filed within sixty (60) days after entry of a plea of not guilty, or fifteen (15) days after the dispositional conference, whichever is later. Except for good cause shown, this Motion is filed, and the requested hearing is sought, in advance of trial, consistent with N.H. R. Crim. P. 15(b)(2).

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

[Provide a clear, chronological, and objective description of events leading to the search. Include:]

• Date, time, and location of the encounter
• Identities of all officers involved (if known)
• Basis claimed for the stop or entry
• Method and scope of the search
• Items seized and any statements obtained

4. GOVERNING LAW AND LEGAL STANDARDS

4.1 Constitutional Protections

Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides: "Every 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. "Unless a warrantless search [or seizure] falls within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, it is per se unreasonable." State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 234 (1983). New Hampshire courts address search-and-seizure claims under the State Constitution first and look to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, only as guidance. State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48 (2003). Since Goss, New Hampshire applies the two-part reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test articulated in Justice Harlan's concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967), to claims under Part I, Article 19.

4.2 Search Warrant Requirements Under RSA 595-A

Where the State relies on a warrant, that warrant must satisfy RSA 595-A:1 and RSA 595-A:2, which require that the warrant be issued upon probable cause by a justice of the municipal, district, or superior court, and that it particularly describe the person, place, or thing to be searched and the property to be seized. A warrant application must be supported by a written statement under oath establishing probable cause. RSA 595-A:4.

4.3 New Hampshire Does Not Recognize a Good-Faith Exception

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which recognizes a "good-faith" exception to the exclusionary rule for reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated warrant, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the New Hampshire Supreme Court has expressly declined to adopt any such exception under the State Constitution. In State v. Canelo, 139 N.H. 376, 386-87 (1995), the Court adopted an exclusionary rule under Part I, Article 19 and held that a good-faith exception is "incompatible with and detrimental to our citizens' strong right of privacy inherent in part I, article 19 and the prohibition against the issuance of warrants without probable cause." Id. at 387. New Hampshire therefore stands with a minority of states — including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Delaware — that have rejected Leon as a matter of state constitutional law.

5. ARGUMENT

5.1 The Search Was Conducted Without a Valid Warrant

The officers conducted the search of Defendant's [vehicle / residence / person] absent any judicially authorized warrant satisfying RSA 595-A. Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under Part I, Article 19 unless a narrowly defined exception applies. State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 234 (1983).

5.2 Absence of Probable Cause or Exigent Circumstances

The facts known to the officers at the time failed to establish probable cause. Additionally, no exigent circumstances existed that would justify foregoing a warrant.

5.3 The Evidence Is the Fruit of an Unlawful Search

Because the search violated Part I, Article 19 and the Fourth Amendment, all tangible objects seized and derivative statements obtained must be excluded as fruit of the unlawful search. See State v. Canelo, 139 N.H. 376, 387 (1995).

5.4 No Good-Faith Exception Is Available Under State v. Canelo

Even where officers relied on a warrant later found invalid, or acted under an asserted good-faith belief in the legality of the search, no good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule exists under New Hampshire constitutional law. State v. Canelo, 139 N.H. 376, 386-87 (1995). Suppression is therefore required regardless of any claim that the officers acted in subjective or objective good faith.

6. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Pursuant to N.H. R. Crim. P. 15(b)(2) and due-process considerations, Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing, to be held in advance of trial, at which the State bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of the search and seizure. Defendant further requests that, upon request of any party, the Court make sufficient findings and rulings to permit meaningful appellate review, as contemplated by N.H. R. Crim. P. 15(b)(2).

7. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:

A. Schedule an evidentiary hearing on this Motion;
B. After hearing, suppress all evidence and statements obtained as a result of the unlawful search and seizure on [date]; and
C. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

8. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence has been delivered to the Office of the [County] County Attorney on this [date], by [method of service]:

☐ Hand Delivery
☐ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
☐ Electronic service through the applicable Superior Court e-filing system (File & Serve), with eService pursuant to the New Hampshire Supreme Court's electronic filing rules

Date: [___]

Respectfully submitted,

9. SIGNATURE BLOCK

__[DEFENSE COUNSEL NAME]__
NH Bar No. [___]
[Law Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[Address Line 2]
[Telephone]
[Email]
Counsel for Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME]

ATTACHMENTS (AS APPLICABLE)

1. Exhibit A – Police Narrative Report
2. Exhibit B – Body-Camera Video Transcript
3. Exhibit C – Defendant's Affidavit
4. [Additional Exhibits]

END OF DOCUMENT