State v. Jessica Morrill, 156 A.3d 1028

Background

Late-night traffic stop of a van after plate check showed plate registered to a different vehicle; trooper McAulay verified registration and questioned driver Jason Millett and passenger Jessica Morrill (defendant).
Three young children were in the rear; officer noted improper restraints and perceived the children as underdressed; Millett and Morrill gave inconsistent accounts of travel.
After initial questioning, McAulay asked Millett to exit the van, frisked him, asked about weapons and drugs; Millett first refused consent to search, then verbally consented after McAulay said he would call a canine unit and seek a warrant if the dog alerted.
Search uncovered a magnetized black box within reach of both front seats containing about 2.88 ounces of cocaine, $1,930 cash, and sandwich bags; prescription pills were recovered from a purse; controlled-substances testing confirmed cocaine and prescription drugs.
Trial court denied suppression motions and a jury convicted Morrill of three counts of possession (oxycodone, alprazolam, lisdexamfetamine) and one count of possession with intent to sell or distribute (cocaine); Morrill appealed suppression denial and sufficiency of evidence for intent-to-distribute charge.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed suppression denial: continued detention after trooper called for a canine unit unlawfully prolonged/changed the stop; consent was tainted and evidence from the consent search must be suppressed. Court nonetheless held admitted evidence (considered for double-jeopardy/sufficiency review) supported a conviction for possession with intent to distribute, so retrial is permitted.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Morrill's Argument	Held
Whether officer lawfully expanded traffic stop by requesting canine unit and seeking consent to search	Expansion justified by officer’s reasonable suspicion (inconsistencies, nervousness, children issues) that criminal activity (including drug smuggling) was afoot	Request for canine unit and ensuing detention impermissibly prolonged/changed stop absent reasonable articulable suspicion tied to contraband	Stop became unlawful when trooper requested canine unit; continued detention was unsupported and unlawfully prolonged/changed the stop; suppression required
Whether consent to search was tainted by unlawful detention (fruit of the poisonous tree)	Consent valid or sufficiently attenuated from any illegality	Consent was product of unlawful prolongation and thus tainted	State did not show attenuation; consent was tainted and evidence from search must be suppressed
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Morrill constructively possessed the cocaine	Proximity of box to passenger seat, van registered to Morrill, purse and children nearby permitted inference of constructive possession	Insufficient nexus to show Morrill knew of or possessed the cocaine; circumstantial evidence does not exclude reasonable innocence	Considering all trial evidence (including suppressed evidence for double jeopardy/sufficiency review), a rational jury could find Morrill had constructive possession; sufficiency challenge fails
Whether evidence showed intent to sell or distribute cocaine	Amount (~2.88 oz) plus $1,930 cash in same box indicate intent to distribute	Only demeanor evidence; insufficient to prove intent to sell	Evidence (quantity and cash) sufficient to support inference of intent to distribute; plain error review fails on first prong

Key Cases Cited

State v. McKinnon-Andrews, 151 N.H. 19 (stop expansion test: questions must be related to stop, justified by reasonable suspicion, or not prolong/alter nature of stop)
State v. Blesdell-Moore, 166 N.H. 183 (limits on investigatory questioning and when questioning about other crimes is justified)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (officers may not prolong a traffic stop to conduct unrelated investigations absent reasonable suspicion)
State v. Cobb, 143 N.H. 638 (fruit of the poisonous tree under Part I, Article 19; evidence derivatively obtained from illegality excluded)
State v. Hight, 146 N.H. 746 (consent given after unlawful detention can be tainted; attenuation/attenuation burden on State)
State v. Turmelle, 132 N.H. 148 (elements of possession: knowledge of nature and presence, and dominion/control)