State of New Hampshire v. Ernest Jones, 235 A.3d 119

On April 28, 2017, two uniformed Concord officers responded to a suspicious-vehicle call and parked on the street without activating emergency lights; each officer approached opposite sides of a parked pickup.
Defendant Ernest Jones (perceived as African-American) sat in the driver’s seat; a female passenger sat in the passenger seat. Officer Mitchell engaged the passenger and ran her ID through dispatch; Begin spoke to the defendant but did not testify at the suppression hearing.
Less than 20 minutes after officers arrived, dispatch advised a bench warrant had been issued for Jones; he was arrested and a search incident to arrest produced fentanyl.
Jones moved to suppress, arguing he was unlawfully seized when officers asked for identification; the trial court denied suppression, finding no show of authority and refusing to consider race in the seizure analysis.
The Supreme Court reversed: the State failed to meet its burden to show no seizure because the record lacked evidence about Begin’s words, how Jones was identified (and whether ID was retained), and when Jones was told he was free to leave; the court also held race may be considered in the totality-of-circumstances seizure analysis.

Issue	State's Argument	Jones's Argument	Held
Whether Jones was "seized" when officers approached the truck and asked for identification	No seizure occurred; officers made no show of authority, did not curtail movement, and interaction was brief and consensual	Officers effectuated a seizure without reasonable suspicion by questioning and requesting ID; evidence should be suppressed	Reversed: State failed to prove no seizure because record lacked critical evidence (Begin’s words, how ID was handled, when Jones was told he could leave)
Whether race may be considered in the seizure analysis	Court below excluded race as a factor	Race is a relevant circumstance in evaluating how a reasonable person would perceive police conduct	Race is an appropriate (but not dispositive) circumstance to consider in the totality-of-the-circumstances seizure analysis

State v. McInnis, 169 N.H. 565 (2017) (accept factual findings unless clearly erroneous; seizure legal question reviewed de novo)
State v. Beauchesne, 151 N.H. 803 (2005) (Part I, Article 19 protects against unreasonable seizures; focus on officer conduct)
State v. Joyce, 159 N.H. 440 (2009) (seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or terminate encounter)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (burden at suppression hearing rests with the State)
State v. Hight, 146 N.H. 746 (2001) (race may be considered when evaluating detention and consent issues)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (defendant’s race is "not irrelevant" to assessing consent and seizure)
United States v. Smith, 423 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2005) (no single factor is dispositive in seizure analysis)