State v. Smith, 37 A.3d 409

Defendant Patricia Smith was charged with a felonyManufacturing marijuana based on evidence from a property search.
Police investigated after a tip and observed unusual electrical usage and vents behind Smith's home.
Officers conducted nighttime surveillance in a wooded area behind the property and detected periods when a vent activated and odor of marijuana was present.
Surveillance occurred on three occasions, linking vent activity with marijuana odor, leading to a warrant for the wooded area behind the home.
Smith moved to suppress the wooded-area observations and later challenged the house-search warrant, arguing lack of probable cause and curtilage intrusion.
Superior Court denied suppression, and on appeal the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, applying state constitutional protections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the wooded area behind the home was within curtilage.	Smith asserted privacy in the area behind her home.	State contends the area was outside curtilage and not protected.	No reasonable expectation of privacy; wooded area not within curtilage.
Whether police entry into the woods violated the State Constitution requiring a warrant.	Smith argues warrantless intrusion breached Article I, Part I, Article 19.	State maintains no protection if curtilage not implicated.	Entry outside curtilage did not require a warrant under Article 19.
Whether the search warrant for the house had probable cause based on the wooded-area observations.	Suppression based on lack of probable cause from three nighttime intrusions.	Observations provided probable cause for the house search.	Probable cause established; suppression not warranted.
Whether the supplemental motion to suppress should have been granted based on lack of notes from a telephone conference.	Notes from a 20-minute telephone conversation with investigators were missing.	Lack of notes undermined credibility of the warrant.	Not necessary to decide; four-corners warrant supported probable cause.

State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46 (2003) (establishes Article 19 protection for home and curtilage)
State v. Pinkham, 141 N.H. 188 (1996) (curtilage protection extended to area surrounding dwelling)
State v. Pinder, 128 N.H. 66 (1986) (curtilage concepts and protection for surrounding land)
State v. Johnson, 159 N.H. 109 (2009) (defines curtilage boundaries and protection)
State v. Orde, 161 N.H. 260 (2010) (factors for reasonable expectation of privacy in surrounding areas)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four-factor test for curtilage and privacy boundaries)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (open fields doctrine and curtilage distinction)
Bleavins v. Bartels, 422 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2005) (proximity and enclosure factors in curtilage analysis)
State v. Martwick, 604 N.W.2d 560 (Wis. 2000) (proximity and enclosure considerations to curtilage)
United States v. Jenkins, 124 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 1997) (backyard use and domestic activity affecting curtilage)