DOC PREVIEW
NCSU ARE 306 - THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

This preview shows page 1 out of 4 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, Supreme Court Building, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m.on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.state.nh.us/courts/supreme.htmTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE___________________________ Lebanon District CourtNo. 2000-443THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIREv.ADAM NEMSER Argued: July 11, 2002Opinion Issued: October 25, 2002 Philip T. McLaughlin, attorney general (Ann M. Rice, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.DesMeules, Olmstead & Ostler, of Norwich, Vermont (George H. Ostler on the brief and orally), for the defendant. NADEAU, J. The State appeals an order of the Lebanon District Court (Cirone, J.) granting defendant Adam Nemser’s motion to suppress. We reverse and remand.The record supports the following facts. The defendant, a Dartmouth College undergraduate, was charged with possession of marijuana. See RSA 318-B:2, I (1995). He moved to suppress, alleging that the entry and search of his room by DartmouthSafety and Security (DSS) officers violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, and Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution. The defendant argued that the DSS officers are agents of the State, to whom the requirements of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Part I, Article 19 apply.The trial court found:[T]he DSS officers (1) do not jointly train with the Hanover Police Department or other law enforcement officers or agencies, (2) do not take specific direction from public law enforcement officials, (3) were not, in the Nemser case, acting at the specific direction or behest of Hanover Police Officers, (4) were not trained or directed by the Hanover Police Department or any other public law enforcement agency in formulating their policy and protocols and, (5) that they were not supplied with any equipment or other accessories or information by the Hanover Police Department to either assist them in or lead them to thediscovery of the items seized in the present case.Nevertheless, the court found a sufficient relationship between DSS and the Hanover Police Department to apply constitutional restrictions to the search at issue, and granted the motion to suppress. The State appealed.The defendant relies upon both the State and Federal Constitutions. We address his State Constitutional claim first, using federal cases merely to aid our analysis under the State Constitution. See State v. Patch, 142 N.H. 453, 456 (1997). "Because in this case State law provides at least as much protection as federal law, we need not make a separate federal analysis." Id. (citations omitted)."[T]he protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply only to State action."Id. at 457. Thus, evidence obtained by a private party may be admissible even if secured through "the most outrageous behavior by [the] private party." State v. Carroll, 138 N.H. 687, 691 (1994) (quotation and brackets omitted). Constitutional restrictions do apply, however, to a seizure of evidence by a private party acting as an agent of law enforcement. See State v. Heirtzler, 147 N.H. 344, 348 (2001). "This ‘agency rule’ prevents the police from having a private individual conduct a search or seizure that would be unlawful if performed by the police themselves." Id. at 349.The State argues that the trial court erred in finding that the DSS officers acted as agents of the State in seizing contraband from the defendant. Because the determination whetheran agency relationship exists is fact-driven, we employ a deferential standard in reviewing the trial court’s finding. See id. at 350. We will therefore "uphold a trial court’sfinding of an agency relationship unless it is unsupported by the record or clearly erroneous." Id.A conclusion that an agency relationship existed requires proof of some affirmative action by a governmental official prior to the search that can reasonably be seen to have induced the search by the private party. See id. at 349. We noted in State v. Bruneau, 131 N.H. 104, 109 (1988), that two kinds of governmental action will meet this standard. Thefirst is the government’s prior agreement with a third party that the latter should act to obtain evidence from a defendant. See id. Whether the agreement is formal or informal, "there will be some responsive communication between the parties, and the exchange willevince an understanding that the third party will be acting on the government’s behalf or for the government’s benefit." Id. Second, a prior governmental request for help may have the same effect, even though the third party who acts upon it may make no reply back to the government but responds simply by taking the action that a government official has requested. See id.The trial court found "no express agreement between the State and College," but rather an"implicit understanding." Specifically, the court found:The College’s agents conduct private area searches of drugs, not necessarily in plain viewor with consent, and seize contraband, hold it for however long DSS determines, and the State won’t prosecute any such agents and won’t object to securing a search warrant [to retrieve contraband in DSS’s possession] to "legalize" the process by cloaking the search with judicial approval.We conclude that the court’s finding is clearly erroneous. See Heirtzler, 147 N.H. at 350.Robert McEwen, college proctor and director of DSS, testified that it is against college policy for students to possess drugs. As of June 1995, the college’s policy with regard to controlled substances encountered by DSS officers was to destroy drug paraphernalia andsmall quantities of contraband and to report to the Hanover Police Department the rare instances in which large quantities of drugs were discovered or DSS suspected drug trafficking. The question was occasionally raised, however, whether DSS officers, being private citizens, risked arrest if they took possession of contraband in the course of their duties.Mr. McEwen expressed this concern to Nicholas Giaccone, Hanover Chief of Police, in a letter dated June


View Full Document

NCSU ARE 306 - THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Documents in this Course
SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS

14 pages

CASE

CASE

19 pages

CASE

CASE

11 pages

CASE

CASE

4 pages

CASE

CASE

5 pages

CASE

CASE

9 pages

CASE

CASE

10 pages

CASE

CASE

19 pages

Load more
Download THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?