State v. Mercier, 66 A.3d 1242

On February 7, 2011, Trooper Ross stopped a pickup driven by Mercier at a toll plaza due to a rear window damaged and duct-taped.
Photographs showed the rear window divided into three panels, with the right panel shattered and taped in an X shape.
The stop culminated in Mercier’s arrest for disobeying a police officer and driving while a habitual offender; probation violation found later.
Mercier moved to suppress the evidence; the Superior Court denied the motion.
The trial court’s suppression ruling rested on whether the stop violated RSA 266:58 and related safety glass requirements.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, adopting a state-constitutional approach and declining to reach federal grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under RSA 266:58	State argued the truck lacked safety glass, creating suspicion of a statute violation.	Mercier contends the vehicle is equipped with safety glass; condition does not negate presence.	No reasonable suspicion; stop invalid.

State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (state constitutional framework; deference to trial findings for factual questions)
State v. DiMaggio, 163 N.H. 497 (2012) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Sharkey, 155 N.H. 638 (2007) (state-analysis suffices when state ground governs)
State v. Pessetto, 160 N.H. 813 (2010) (limits on expanding statutory terms; avoid adding words legislature did not include)
Longcore, 623 N.W.2d 201 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) ( cautions against treating damaged safety glass as per se violation)