NHCaseLaw.com

The defendant, Kendrick Hoskins, is charged with one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, one count of possession of crack cocaine, and one count of resisting detention. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized as the result of an investigative stop of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. I conclude that the motion must be denied.

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.

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 defendants are each charged with one count of theft by receiving stolen property, one count of conspiracy to commit burglary, one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and two counts of cruelty to animals. The allegations arose in connection with the drowning of a miniature dachshund dog, which allegedly occurred in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on May 18, 2004. The defendants now move to suppress all evidence the police obtained after their vehicles were stopped at the Dairy Queen in Kittery, Maine, alleging that the police were prohibited from relying on information contained in certain emails to effectuate the stops. Specifically, they claim the emails were obtained in violation of the wiretap statute and thus, any evidence derived from the emails must be suppressed. The State objects. For the reasons stated in this order, the defendants’ motions are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

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.

The defendant, Patrick O’Neill, stands charged with two counts of possession of cocaine. See RSA 318-B:2; RSA 318-B:26(I)(c)(1). He moves the court to suppress evidence the police obtained during a search of his vehicle on August 19, 2006, arguing that the traffic stop leading to the search was illegal from the outset. In addition, the defendant argues that even assuming the legality of the initial traffic stop, the police improperly expanded the investigative scope of that stop, thereby tainting his subsequent consent to a search. The court held a hearing on this matter on April 2, 2007. After considering the evidence, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the defendant’s motion is GRANTED for reasons stated in this order.