State v. Tyler Boyer, 133 A.3d 262

Background

Tyler Boyer lived with his girlfriend A.N. in an Ashland apartment; after an alleged violent incident he was released on bail with conditions forbidding any contact with A.N., coming within 100 feet of her, interfering at her residence, and requiring him to live elsewhere.
Three days later police saw Boyer’s truck near the apartment, knocked, A.N. answered and consented to officers entering; officers found and arrested Boyer inside for indirect criminal contempt (violating the bail order).
Boyer moved to suppress the evidence (his presence) as the product of an unconstitutional warrantless entry; the trial court found he had standing and suppressed the evidence, concluding A.N.’s consent was not voluntary.
The State appealed only the standing ruling, arguing Boyer’s presence in the apartment in violation of the bail order eliminated any objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed: because Boyer was lawfully prohibited from being at the apartment with A.N., his subjective expectation of privacy was not one society would recognize as reasonable, so he lacked standing to challenge the search under Part I, Article 19 and the Fourth Amendment.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Boyer's Argument	Held
Whether Boyer had standing to challenge the warrantless entry and arrest	Boyer’s presence at the apartment violated a bail/no-contact order, so he had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and thus no standing	Boyer retained a privacy interest in his home even if temporarily forbidden to return	Held: No standing — his unlawful presence eliminated a reasonable expectation of privacy
Whether the trespass theory of Jardines provides independent standing	The bail order also removed Boyer’s temporary property/right-to-exclude interests, so Jardines trespass theory does not apply	Jardines protects physical intrusions regardless of whether Boyer had right to be present	Held: Jardines inapplicable because Boyer lacked the property interest/right-to-exclude at the time of intrusion
Whether the nature of the “evidence seized” affects standing	The State emphasized the seized "evidence" was Boyer himself for contempt, linking the search directly to the bail violation	Boyer argued standing need not evaporate simply because the seized evidence was his presence	Held: Significant — because the arrest related directly to violating the protective bail order, this supports denying standing
Public-policy consideration re: domestic violence orders	State argued recognizing privacy here would undermine enforcement and victim protection and deter police intervention	Boyer argued broad denial of standing would be absurd and overly broad	Held: Court credited public-policy concerns favoring victim protection and policing, supporting denial of standing

Key Cases Cited

Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (Sup. Ct.) (expectation-of-privacy test requires a reasonable expectation grounded in property or societal understandings)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Sup. Ct.) (right to challenge a search tied to interests the Fourth Amendment protects)
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (Sup. Ct.) (trespass-based theory: physical intrusion into curtilage is a search)
Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (Sup. Ct.) (tenants and present possessory occupants can have Fourth Amendment privacy interests)
United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (Sup. Ct.) (exclusionary rule applied more cautiously when the evidence is a live witness)
United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (Sup. Ct.) (property described as a bundle of rights; rights can be separated)
Commonwealth v. Morrison, 710 N.E.2d 584 (Mass.) (defendant subject to protective order lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in premises he was ordered to avoid)
State v. Stephenson, 760 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. Ct. App.) (defendant barred by protective order from residence had no recognized privacy right to challenge presence-based evidence)
State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46 (N.H.) (adopting expectation-of-privacy framework under Part I, Article 19)
State v. Gubitosi, 152 N.H. 673 (N.H.) (standing can be based on legitimate expectation of privacy or crime-related possession element)