NHCaseLaw.com

BRODERICK, C.J. The defendant, Luis A. Rodriguez, appeals from an order of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) denying his motion to suppress evidence of his possession of controlled drugs, discovered as a result of a warrantless entry by the police into his hotel room. We affirm.

GALWAY, J. The State appeals the order of the Superior Court (Barry, J.) granting the motion to suppress filed by the defendant, Joseph Panarello. We affirm and remand.

BRODERICK, C.J. After a jury trial in Superior Court (Hicks, J.), the defendant, William Joseph Sullivan, Jr., was convicted of first degree murder, see RSA 630:1-a (2007), and conspiracy to commit murder, see id.; RSA 629:3 (2007). He appeals his convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of self-incriminating statements he made to members of the Nashua Police Department, and by dismissing and replacing a member of his jury after the commencement of deliberations. We reverse and remand.

The defendant, Shawn Proulx, is charged with one count of possession of a controlled drug with the intent to sell. He moves to suppress evidence obtained from an allegedly unlawful search and seizure, The State objects. The Court held a hearing on this motion on March 10, 2008. The Court heard the testimony of Lieutenant Paul Poirier (`Lieutenant Poirier"), Officer Thomas Prentice (”Officer Prentice"), Detective Scott Park ("Detective Park"), Dispatcher James Connelly ("Dispatcher Connelly") of the Merrimack Police Department as well as Stephanie Hooper ("Hooper") from The Telegraph and the defendant. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.

The defendant moves to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his seizure, asserting that he was illegally seized in violation of his rights under part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the defendant contends that the police officers did not have the necessary "reasonable and articulable suspicion" to seize his vehicle and requests that all evidence obtained as a result of that seizure be suppressed. The State objects. The relevant facts are as follows.

The defendants are each charged with two counts of Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, with Intent to Sell or Dispense, and one count of Controlling Premises where a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, was Illegally Kept or Deposited. See RSA 318-B:26 (Supp. 2001). The defendants move to suppress the physical evidence obtained during an allegedly unlawful search of their residence. Having considered the evidence and the parties' arguments, the Court GRANTS the defendants' motion.

The defendant, Jason Fuller, is charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, theft by unauthorized taking and receiving stolen property. The charges all arise out of the defendant's alleged participation in the December 5, 2000 burglary of the residence of Chester Chmiola at 56 Grant Street, Manchester. Among the items taken in the burglary were a Baretta handgun and two (2) two- dollar bills. Presently before the court are the following pretrial motions filed by the defendant: (1) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #4); (2) Motion to Suppress Statement (Doc. #5); and Motion to Suppress (Doc. #6). After reciting the pertinent facts, I address the motions in turn, concluding that the second motion must be granted while the first and third must be denied.

This order addresses defendant’s motions to suppress incriminating evidence and statements the State obtained from him pursuant to an allegedly illegal search and interrogation. The court held a hearing on these matters on March 26, 2002. After consideration of the parties’ arguments, the relevant law, and the evidence presented at hearing, the court GRANTS defendant’s motions.

The defendant, Paul Zinck, is charged with numerous counts of Possession of Child Pornography, contrary to RSA 649-A:3, I(e) (Supp. 2004). On January 3, 2005, the court granted the defendant’s most recently filed Motion to Suppress in which he alleged, for the first time, that the State failed to conduct a search of his computer and related equipment in a timely fashion. Specifically, the defendant argued that the 18-month delay between the time the warrant was signed and the State’s first efforts to search his computer violated both the State and Federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. The State now moves this court to reconsider the order. For the reasons stated here, the motion is DENIED.

The defendant, William Wood, is charged with two (2) counts of possession of a controlled drug with intent to sell and two (2) counts of possession of a controlled drug. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search and seizure which forms the basis for the charges. I conclude that the motion must be granted.