State v. Beauchemin
161 N.H. 654
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Defendant Beauchemin was convicted on a bench trial of baiting for wildlife during the closed season under RSA 207:3-d, I; hunting baiting prohibited April 15 to August 31 per Fis 307.01(b).
- Officer Brown investigated deer carcasses on Beauchemin’s property in 2008, entered Beauchemin’s porch, observed potential baiting, and took a photograph.
- In August 2009, Brown found corn and a salt-rich mineral block near Beauchemin’s residence and saw Beauchemin carrying two five-gallon buckets of corn; Brown advised Beauchemin that baiting was illegal during the closed season.
- Beauchemin moved to suppress evidence from 2008, arguing an illegal entry and a tainted basis for the 2009 investigation; trial court reserved ruling for trial.
- Beauchemin was convicted after trial; he appeals the suppression ruling and the interpretation of what constitutes baiting substances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 entry and photograph tainted the 2009 investigation | Beauchemin argues 2008 entry violated law and tainted later evidence | Beauchemin contends 2008 entry violated statutory and constitutional rights | No Fourth Amendment/State Constitution violation; 2008 porch observation within officer powers; suppression denied |
| Whether RSA 206:26 I authorizes entry onto a porch for wildlife enforcement | Officer acted within statutory authority to enforce wildlife laws | Officer exceeded powers by entering living space | Officer was within statutory powers to go onto the porch to enforce wildlife rules |
| Whether corn and salt-rich mineral blocks are baiting substances under RSA 207:1, II-a | Corn and mineral block are baiting substances | Not within the scope of the statute’s listed examples | Corn and mineral blocks qualify as baiting under RSA 207:1, II-a; they lure game |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Craveiro, 155 N.H. 423, 924 A.2d 361 (2007) (review of suppression rulings; deferential to trial court findings on fact; de novo legal review)
- State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d 347 (1983) (privacy on private property; observations from visitor-accessible areas not a constitutional violation)
- State v. Orde, 161 N.H. 260, 13 A.3d 338 (2010) (limits on conservation officers’ entry to porch areas; not a violation under State Constitution)
- State v. Breed, 159 N.H. 61, 977 A.2d 463 (2009) (statutory interpretation; ejusdem generis applied to define broader terms)
- State v. Thiel, 160 N.H. 462, 999 A.2d 367 (2010) (statutory interpretation standard; focus on plain meaning)