State of New Hampshire v. Taneal C. Broadus, 111 A.3d 57

Trooper Locke stopped a vehicle after observing the driver discard a lit cigarette; he smelled recently burned marijuana. The defendant was the passenger.
The driver admitted smoking marijuana earlier and produced a marijuana "roach" from behind the seat; both occupants had valid licenses and no warrants.
Locke asked the defendant to exit; he observed an open beer bottle by her feet (she denied drinking), she avoided eye contact, and wore baggy clothing. Backup was ~20 minutes away.
Locke conducted a pat-down frisk of the defendant, felt a prescription pill bottle in her pocket, asked for it, and the defendant handed it over. The bottle contained oxycodone and codeine prescribed to someone else.
Defendant moved to suppress the pills as the product of an unconstitutional frisk; trial court denied suppression, relying on both the frisk justification and an alternative inevitable discovery rationale. Defendant convicted on felony counts for oxycodone and codeine and misdemeanor marijuana possession.
On appeal the New Hampshire Supreme Court held the frisk was not supported by particularized, objective facts and vacated and remanded on the inevitable discovery issue for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Broadus)	Held
Whether the pat-down frisk was justified by reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and presently dangerous	Officer had articulable facts (defendant lied about drinking, avoided eye contact, wore baggy clothes, officer outnumbered and backup distant) sufficient to justify a protective frisk	Frisk lacked particularized, objective facts showing defendant was armed and dangerous; observed behaviors are insufficient	Frisk invalid: facts did not create reasonable suspicion the defendant was armed and presently dangerous (State Constitution basis)
Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine saves the evidence (pills)	Even if frisk invalid, pills would have been inevitably discovered because officer had probable cause to arrest for marijuana possession and open-container, and a search incident to arrest would have revealed the pills	No probable cause or sufficient showing that arrest was substantially likely; trial record insufficient to meet the doctrine's standard	Remanded: court declined to decide inevitable discovery standard here and remanded for factual findings and legal analysis on whether pills would have been inevitably discovered

State v. Michelson, 160 N.H. 270 (N.H. 2010) (protective frisk requires reasonable suspicion defendant is armed and presently dangerous)
State v. Holler, 123 N.H. 195 (N.H. 1983) (articulates New Hampshire application of inevitable discovery doctrine)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (N.H. 1983) (state constitutional analysis may be dispositive without reaching federal claims)
State v. Perri, 164 N.H. 400 (N.H. 2012) (standard of review for trial court factual findings and legal conclusions)
State v. Turmel, 150 N.H. 377 (N.H. 2003) (totality-of-circumstances approach; do not isolate facts)
State v. Miglavs, 90 P.3d 607 (Or. 2004) (attire alone does not support reasonable suspicion someone is armed)