State v. Lantagne, 83 A.3d 397

At Canobie Lake Park a patron reported a man (Lantagne) using his cellphone to photograph children in bathing suits; security observed him aiming his phone and then viewing it.
Security retrieved the phone while the defendant was tapping its keys and saw images of young girls; security gave the phone to police and questioned the defendant, who admitted photographing 11–12 year-old girls and downloading images to his home computer.
Police arrested the defendant for disorderly conduct (RSA 644:2) and transported him to the station; after hours of questioning he admitted to possessing child pornography on his home computer.
Detectives obtained search warrants for the bedroom and computer; analysis of seized equipment produced images used to convict the defendant on stipulated facts for possessing child sexual abuse images (RSA 649-A:3).
The original disorderly conduct charge was never pursued; defendant moved to suppress evidence, arguing the arrest lacked probable cause. The trial court denied suppression, concluding there was probable cause but did not identify the specific crime.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the officers lacked probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct and thus all evidence and statements following the unlawful arrest were fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether police had probable cause to arrest Lantagne for disorderly conduct	Police: observations and admissions gave probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct (threatening behavior)	Lantagne: photographing children in public did not constitute threatening behavior sufficient for probable cause	No — photographing children in public did not show a threat of imminent harm; arrest lacked probable cause
Whether evidence obtained after arrest should be suppressed	State: trial court found probable cause so evidence admissible	Lantagne: evidence was fruit of unlawful arrest and must be excluded	Yes — because arrest unlawful, subsequent statements and seizure were tainted and must be suppressed
Whether any exception to exclusionary rule applied	State did not assert applicable exception	N/A	Not addressed — State did not argue exceptions; court excluded evidence
Whether state constitutional analysis required federal analysis	State: relied on State Constitution and used federal law as aid	Lantagne: relied on State constitutional protections	Court: State Constitution dispositive; no separate federal analysis required

State v. Newcomb, 161 N.H. 666 (defines probable cause standard for arrest)
State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145 (standard for reviewing trial court probable cause findings)
State v. Orde, 161 N.H. 260 (fruit of the poisonous tree under N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 19 requires suppression)
State v. De La Cruz, 158 N.H. 564 (describes exceptions to exclusionary rule)
State v. Mercier, 165 N.H. 83 (statutory interpretation and when federal analysis is unnecessary)