The defendant, Bradford Dalton, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) — third offense following a bench trial in the 2d Circuit Court — Lebanon District Division (drone, J.). See RSA 265-A:2
The following facts are derived from the record of the suppression hearing. At about 7:40 p.m. on June 17, 2010, Officer Gordon Cunningham was on patrol in Lebanon when he observed a vehicle that did not appear to have a New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) inspection sticker. See RSA 266:1, II (Supp. 2012). Consequently, the officer activated his blue lights and stopped the vehicle, which was being driven by the defendant. Upon making contact with the defendant, the officer noticed that the vehicle displayed a transparent DMV temporary inspection sticker, indicating that it had passed the safety portion of the mandatory inspection, but had failed the emissions system portion. See RSA 266:59-b, V (Supp. 2012). Such inspection stickers contain a number indicating the month in which the inspection took place, but do not denote the year. The sticker had a number 5, indicating that it was issued in May.
When an individual is issued a transparent inspection sticker, that person has sixty days within which to correct the emissions problem. See id. Because the officer could not determine the year in which the inspection sticker was issued and, therefore, whether it was valid, he asked the defendant for his license, registration, and the inspection paperwork. While speaking with the defendant, the officer smelled a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle. The defendant was subsequently charged with DUI — third offense.
Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence derived from the stop. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the officer was “permitted to request the inspection station’s paperwork to determine whether [the defendant] was still within the 60 day window to repair the emissions problem because the commencement date of the 60 day period is not readily apparent from the sticker.” Based upon the State’s offer of proof, the trial court found the defendant guilty. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the officer violated his rights under Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by continuing the motor vehicle stop after realizing that the vehicle displayed an inspection sticker. The State counters that the officer’s request for the driver’s license, registration, and garage inspection report were all reasonably related to the initial justification for the stop.
When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous, and we review its legal conclusions de novo. State v.
Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable seizures. N.H. CONST, pt. I, art. 19. “A warrantless seizure is per se unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Licks,
The defendant does not challenge the propriety of the initial stop based upon the officer’s mistaken perception that the vehicle did not display an inspection sticker. Rather, he asserts that upon observing the transparent inspection sticker, reasonable suspicion was dispelled and, therefore, the officer could take no further action beyond explaining the mistake to the defendant and informing him that he was free to leave. See, e.g., United States v. Jenkins,
We disagree with the defendant’s characterization of the scope of the stop. Here, as the trial court concluded, the officer did not stop the defendant to determine merely whether the vehicle displayed an inspection sticker; he stopped the defendant to determine whether the vehicle displayed a valid inspection sticker, as required by statute. See RSA 266:1, II. Because the officer could not determine whether the transparent sticker was a valid inspection sticker, he was permitted to “engag[e] in facially innocuous dialog which a detained motorist would not reasonably perceive as altering the fundamental nature of the stop.” State v. McKinnon-Andrews,
“States have a vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed.” Delaware v. Prouse,
The defendant cites several eases from other jurisdictions to support his assertion that the officer was not permitted to inquire further once he observed the transparent inspection sticker. We find these cases to be inapposite. For example, in United States v. McSwain,
The defendant argues that if we affirm this case, then “any person whose vehicle passes the safety portion of the inspection but fails the on-board diagnostic emissions portion, and who is thus issued a clear, 60-day inspection sticker, could be pulled over at any time during that 60-day period.” We disagree. Here, the officer did not stop the defendant because he saw a transparent inspection sticker; the officer stopped the defendant because he did not see any inspection sticker. Thus, we need not decide today whether the police may stop any vehicle displaying a transparent inspection sticker.
“The bare essentials of a ‘routine traffic stop’ consist of causing the vehicle to stop, explaining to the driver the reason for the stop, verifying the credentials of the driver and the vehicle, and then issuing a citation or a warning.” 4 W. LAFAVE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, A TREATISE ON THE Fourth Amendment § 9.3(c), at 507 (5th ed. 2012) (emphasis added). Nothing more occurred here. We, therefore, conclude that the officer’s
The Federal Constitution provides no greater protection than the State Constitution in this area. Licks,
Affirmed.