Consent to Search (4)

State v. Munoz, 2007-159 (N.H. S.Ct., Apr. 18, 2008)

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Peter Munoz, appeals his conviction following a jury trial for attempted burglary, see RSA 635:1 (2007); RSA 629:1 (2007), arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motions to quash and to dismiss, and in permitting certain testimony. We affirm.

State v. Simpson, 02-S-1896 (Rockingham, Apr. 23, 2003)

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.

State v. Windhurst, 05-S-1749 (Merrimack, Jul. 13, 2006)

The defendant, Eric Windhurst, is charged with one count of first degree murder for allegedly shooting Daniel Paquette to death on or about November 9, 1985. The State alleges that the defendant committed this crime while accompanied by Melanie Cooper, Paquette’s step-daughter. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress consensually recorded telephone conversations between Cooper and the defendant which were obtained by the New Hampshire State Police on various dates in July 2004. The court heard argument on the motion on June 23, 2006. I conclude that the motion is lacking in merit and must be denied.

State v. O'Neill, 06-S-3456, 06-S-3457 (Rockingham, Apr. 17, 2007)

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.
Syndicate content