State of New Hampshire v. Hillman Blesdell-Moore, 91 A.3d 619

Officer stops defendant’s truck for defective tail lights; taillights fixed after stop; no impairment observed.
Officer notes defendant’s bloodshot eyes and trembling hands; defendant cooperates and exits vehicle to fix lights.
Officer observes green coating on tongue; suspects marijuana use; asks about marijuana and permits a pat-down.
Defendant provides money after pat-down; conversation briefly interrupted by a call with father; officer later lets defendant go.
Officer later asks about marijuana again and asks about canine unit; defendant confesses to possession of marijuana and mushrooms.
Defendant files four suppression motions; tongue-film suppression granted; other motions denied; appeal follows.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was tongue inspection within lawful stop scope?	Blesdell-Moore	Blesdell-Moore	Tongue inspection unlawfully expanded stop
Did the taint from the unlawful stop render later evidence inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree?	State	Blesdell-Moore	Exclusionary rule bars all post-expansion evidence; reversed

State v. McKinnon-Andrews, 151 N.H. 19 (2004) (scope of stop and questioning test)
State v. Wong, 138 N.H. 56 (1993) (stop scope must be limited to purpose)
State v. Hight, 146 N.H. 746 (2001) (reasonable suspicion required for further investigation)
State v. Michelson, 160 N.H. 270 (2010) (determinant of stop’s duration and scope)
State v. Joyce, 159 N.H. 440 (2009) (innocent factors must show concrete suspicion)
State v. Livingston, 153 N.H. 399 (2006) (odor of marijuana as factor in stop expansion)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (state constitution exclusionary rule)
State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765 (2008) (fruit of the poisonous tree application factors)
State v. Panarello, 157 N.H. 204 (2008) (purpose and taint analysis in suppression)
State v. De La Cruz, 158 N.H. 564 (2009) (taint purge exception framework)