State of New Hampshire v. Michael Francis, 167 N.H. 598

Police surveillance identified Michael Francis as wanted on parole violation and suspected of dealing drugs; detectives observed him enter a tinted Ford Expedition SUV and followed it.
Officers stopped the SUV, ordered occupants out with guns drawn; Francis was the last to exit (30–45 seconds after others).
Because windows were tinted/dirty and officers could not see inside, Detective Gonzales conducted a brief (8–10 second) protective sweep of the SUV without a warrant or consent and moved seats.
During the sweep Gonzales saw an open red backpack containing the top of a semi-automatic handgun in plain view; after the owner refused consent, police obtained a search warrant.
Warrant search uncovered heroin under the driver’s seat and, in the backpack, a handgun and drug paraphernalia (one scale tested positive for heroin residue). Francis was charged and convicted of possession of heroin with intent to dispense.
Francis moved to suppress the evidence (arguing the sweep violated state and federal constitutions) and later moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence of possession; both motions were denied and conviction affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Francis)	Held
Validity of warrantless protective sweep	Officers reasonably believed someone dangerous might remain in SUV given tinted windows, Francis’s parole status, possible access to guns, and he was last to exit	Sweep lacked articulable facts to believe another person remained or posed danger; violated state and federal constitutions	Sweep permissible: officers had reasonable belief another dangerous person could be in vehicle; protective sweep exception applies
Sufficiency of evidence for possession	Circumstantial evidence (Francis carried a red backpack placed in front of him; backpack contained paraphernalia testing positive for heroin; statements urging not to search) linked Francis to heroin	Knowledge alone insufficient; mere passenger status and not owner/driver negates constructive possession	Evidence sufficient: jury could infer constructive possession from proximity of backpack, opportunity while alone in vehicle, and statements; conviction upheld

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective-sweep framework; limited sweep incident to arrest)
State v. Smith, 141 N.H. 271 (1996) (New Hampshire adopts Buie standard for protective sweeps)
State v. Trebian, 164 N.H. 629 (constructive possession elements: knowledge, presence, dominion and control)
State v. Tabaldi, 165 N.H. 306 (constructive possession may be inferred from circumstances; need not be exclusive)
State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350 (standards for reviewing sufficiency of circumstantial evidence)