State v. Orde, 13 A.3d 338

Officer served a dog complaint at Orde's home; deck and lilac bushes shield the deck from view.
Officer Corrado entered the driveway and climbed onto the deck, observing marijuana plants.
Defendant made incriminating statements after being confronted with the plants; police obtained a warrant based on those plants, statements, and a garden hose observation.
Trial court denied suppression; defense appealed challenging warrantless deck entry and resulting evidence.
Court held the deck was protected curtilage; warrantless entry violated Article 19; all deck-obtained evidence and tainted materials cannot support the warrant; statements and home search evidence suppressed; case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the deck?	State argues no anticipated privacy in deck; areas like driveways are open to public.	Orde argues deck privacy is protected curtilage.	Yes; deck had reasonable expectation of privacy.
Did Corrado's warrantless entry onto the deck require a warrant or exception?	State contends no warrant required for observation from accessible areas.	Orde contends warrantless entry violated privacy rights.	Unlawful entry; warrant/exception required.
Are statements and other evidence tainted by the illegal deck entry?	Evidence tainted but might be salvaged by independent source.	Statements and deck-based evidence should be suppressed.	Statements suppressed as fruit of illegal search; taint not purged.
Is the search warrant valid given tainted preceding evidence?	Warrant based on deck plants and statements; tainted by illegality.	Tainted evidence cannot support probable cause.	Suppression of all evidence obtained under the warrant.

State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46 (2003) (state Constitution protects against unreasonable searches; curtilage protection recognizes privacy interests)
State v. Pinkham, 141 N.H. 188 (1996) (two-part test for reasonable expectation of privacy; location and access routes matter)
State v. Johnston, 150 N.H. 448 (2004) (curtilage protection depends on reasonable expectation of privacy)
Krisco Corp., 421 Mass. 37 (1995) (factors for reasonableness of privacy in Krisco framework)
State v. Sawyer, 145 N.H. 704 (2001) (per se rule: warrantless entries are unlawful absent an exception)
State v. Nieves, 160 N.H. 245 (2010) (plain view requires lawful initial intrusion; tainted search cannot justify)
State v. Pinder, 126 N.H. 220 (1985) (taint analysis for fruit of illegality)
State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179 (2004) (probable cause standard for warrants; tainted info excision rule)
State v. Plch, 149 N.H. 608 (2003) (probable cause can be established from untainted information when part of warrant is tainted)