State v. Schulz
164 N.H. 217
| N.H. | 2012Background
- Defendant Logan Schulz challenged suppression of evidence from a home search conducted under a warrant to search for firearms.
- Officer Ailing believed three guns near the staircase were firearms and sought a warrant based on that belief.
- Officers later learned the guns were BB guns, not firearms, during the search.
- A second warrant was obtained to search a lock box, yielding cocaine and money.
- Trial court denied suppression; bench trial convicted Schulz on two drug charges.
- Court held, under the state constitution, suppression was required and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial warrant lacked probable cause/particularity | Schulz argues the warrant for 'firearms' lacked probable cause. | State contends probable cause and particularity were satisfied. | Probable cause and particularity assumed for analysis; execution violated Article 19. |
| Whether continuing the search after discovering BB guns violated rights | BB guns dispel probable cause; search should stop. | Policing discretion allowed continuing search under the warrant. | Search must be discontinued; suppression warranted under state constitution. |
| Remedy and scope of suppression under state constitution | Suppression appropriate for unlawfully obtained evidence. | Not addressing the second warrant as independent basis. | Remand for suppression; federal issue not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (analysis guiding state constitutional review of warrants)
- State v. Beauchemin, 161 N.H. 654 (2011) (de novo review of suppression rulings; constitutional standards)
- Garrison v. United States, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (must judge conduct based on information available at issue; discontinue when probable cause dissipates)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (two-step analysis for warrants: probable cause and reasonableness of execution)
- United States v. Marin-Buitrago, 734 F.2d 889 (2d Cir. 1984) (probable cause must exist at issuance and execution; new facts may not undermine still-existing cause)
- Bowling v. United States, 900 F.2d 926 (6th Cir. 1990) (reaffirmed need for probable cause after a fruitless search; magistrate review may be required)
- Ramirez, 112 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 1997) (apply Garrison to wiretaps; cannot use warrant if evidence no longer supports probable cause)
- Guzman v. City of Chicago, 565 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2009) (illustrates limits when ongoing search lacks probable cause)
- United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause based on totality of circumstances)
- State v. Stearns, 130 N.H. 475 (1988) (probable cause remains if disputed portions are removed)