State v. Daniel Jesus Cora
167 A.3d 633
| N.H. | 2017Background
- Manchester police stopped defendant's car for running a red light and cutting off an officer; officer smelled fresh marijuana and asked defendant to exit.
- Defendant declined consent to search; an officer saw from outside a tied baggie with brown powder and a cigarette with leafy green substance near the front passenger doorjamb.
- Officers entered the vehicle, seized the baggie and cigarette, and charged defendant with possession (one misdemeanor, one felony).
- At suppression hearing, trial court granted defendant's motion, concluding plain view did not justify the entry and relying on State v. Sterndale to reject the federal automobile exception under the New Hampshire Constitution.
- State appealed, arguing Sterndale should be overruled or is abrogated by State v. Goss; the Supreme Court reconsidered New Hampshire’s approach to automobile searches under Part I, Article 19.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cora) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Hampshire should adopt the federal automobile exception (Ross) under Part I, Article 19 | Adopt Ross: officers with probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle may search any part that may conceal contraband | Sterndale remains binding; warrant required absent recognized exception | Court declined to adopt Ross wholesale; retained Sterndale’s central holding against full adoption |
| Whether Sterndale was abrogated by Goss and whether a narrower automobile exception should be recognized | Goss’s expectation-of-privacy analysis undercuts Sterndale; permit a limited exception for publicly visible interior areas | Goss does not undermine Sterndale; entry here violated privacy/trespass principles | Court held Goss abrogated Sterndale in part and recognized a limited exception |
| Whether a warrant was required to enter vehicle to seize plainly visible contraband during lawful stop | No warrant needed when vehicle lawfully stopped in transit and officers have probable cause to believe a plainly visible item is contraband | Warrant required; plain view did not authorize the entry | Held: limited automobile exception applies — no warrant needed under those conditions |
| Whether plain view exception alone justified entry and seizure | Officers had probable cause from plain view; entry permitted under limited exception | Entry violated Article 19; seizure invalid | Held: seizure valid because entry was permissible under the newly recognized limited exception |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (federal automobile exception allows warrantless search of every part of a vehicle where probable cause exists)
- State v. Sterndale, 139 N.H. 445 (1995) (New Hampshire declined to adopt federal automobile exception under state constitution)
- State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46 (2003) (adopted reasonable expectation of privacy analysis under Part I, Article 19)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain view seizure requirements: item in plain view, lawful vantage point, lawful right of access)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (recognizes diminished expectation of privacy in automobiles due to public exposure)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (discusses expectations of privacy distinguishing vehicles from residences)