State v. Newcomb, 20 A.3d 881

Kensington police received a report of two men with a U-Haul parked at 9 Old Amesbury Road; owner/property neighbor indicated entry was not allowed while owners away.
Defendant Newcomb and Timothy Dzenowagis were on the property when approached by police; Newcomb appeared nervous and did not respond when asked who drove the vehicle.
Dzenowagis identified himself and provided a New Hampshire ID; both men claimed the U-Haul belonged to a friend and that nothing was in it.
Property owner Melissa Dzenowagis asked for both men to be arrested and for removal of vehicles from the property; she had previously told Dzenowagis not to be on the property.
The U-Haul had been rented the previous night in Newcomb’s name; the men admitted the vehicle had been brought to the property for the move.
O'Sullivan arrested both men for criminal trespass and impounded the U-Haul and a car; he conducted inventory searches of both vehicles under the department’s policy, leading to discovery of building materials and copper prior to applying for a search warrant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was probable cause to arrest for criminal trespass	State argues probable cause existed given the conduct	Newcomb contends only reasonable suspicion existed, not probable cause	Probable cause existed to arrest Newcomb for criminal trespass
Whether the U-Haul inventory search violated Part I, Article 19 and the policy scope	State contends the search complied with policy allowing locked areas like a trunk	Newcomb argues the back of the U-Haul isn’t a trunk and not within the policy scope	Inventory search violated art. 19; back of U-Haul not within policy scope as a trunk; improper search
If the inventory search was unlawful, whether tainted evidence is excised and whether remaining affidavit supports probable cause	Evidence tainted; remaining facts may still establish probable cause	Remand to determine probable cause without tainted evidence	Remanded to determine probable cause sans tainted evidence; excision required; majority remand on remaining questions

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145 (1994) (probable cause analysis uses reasonable probabilities, not conviction standards)
State v. Hutton, 108 N.H. 279 (1967) (probable cause assessments rely on commonsense evaluation)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches are valid when based on a neutral policy)
State v. Denoncourt, 149 N.H. 308 (2003) (inventory policies must provide clear guidance to limit discretion)
State v. Craveiro, 155 N.H. 423 (2007) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; deference to trial findings on facts)