The defendant, Glenn Michelson, was found guilty, based upon stipulated facts, of possession of diazepam, a controlled drug. See RSA318-B:2,1 (2004) (amended 2008). He appeals an order of the Superior Court CArnold, J.) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a stop for a motor vehicle violation. We affirm.
The trial court found or the record of the suppression hearing supports the following. On or about the evening of February 1, 2007, Sergeant Stan Andrewski of the Claremont Police Department stopped the defendant after observing him make two turns without signaling. In addition to the defendant, there were two passengers in the vehicle. Andrewski asked the defendant to step out of the car, which he did. The defendant had blood on his face and nose and said that he had been involved in a fight.
Detective Brent Wilmot arrived to assist, and spoke to the defendant at the rear of his cruiser. While the defendant was telling Wilmot about the fight, Wilmot saw Andrewski remove a baseball bat from the defendant’s car. Wilmot asked the defendant why he had the bat, and the defendant explained that he carried it to defend himself in the event of an attack, which he had reason to fear based upon recent phone calls he had received. Wilmot believed that the defendant “was not being 100 percent truthful” due to his lack of eye contact, failure to answer questions directly, and attempts to change the topic. Wilmot then asked the defendant if he had any other weapons. The defendant replied that he “didn’t think so.”
Wilmot informed the defendant that he was going to do a pat-down search for weapons. During the frisk, Wilmot found a small folding knife in the defendant’s pocket. He then asked the defendant whether he had “anything else on his person.” The defendant stated, “To the best of my knowledge, I don’t have anything.” Wilmot replied, ‘What does that mean?” and the defendant said, “There shouldn’t be anything.” Not convinced of the defendant’s truthfulness, Wilmot asked again, “What, if anything, you know, do you have on you?” The defendant then admitted that he had drugs and produced two diazepam tablets wrapped in cellophane from the coin pocket on his right hip.
Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress the diazepam, arguing that the search of his person violated his rights under Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should have granted his motion because Wilmot did not have a justifiable basis for performing the frisk. In the alternative, he argues that even if the frisk was justified, Wilmot’s subsequent
We first address the defendant’s argument under the State Constitution, State v. Ball,
“Once an officer is justified in making an investigatory stop, he may also conduct a protective frisk if the officer reasonably believes the individual is armed and presently dangerous.” State v. Szczerbiak,
The defendant does not dispute that he was lawfully detained as a result of his motor vehicle violation. See McKinnon-Andrews,
“To determine the sufficiency of an officer’s suspicion, we consider the articulable facts in light of all surrounding circumstances, keeping in mind that a trained officer may make inferences and draw conclusions from conduct that may seem unremarkable to an untrained observer.” State v. Joyce,
Here, the defendant stated that he had been involved in a fight and had blood on his nose. A baseball bat, which he admitted to carrying for self-defense, was found in his car. Based upon the defendant’s behavior, including his lack of eye contact and unclear response when asked whether he had any other weapons, Wilmot doubted the defendant’s truthfulness in responding to his questions regarding the fight. In particular, Wilmot suspected that the defendant might have been the assailant in the fight. Wilmot believed that his safety was at risk as he spoke to the defendant. In view of these facts, Wilmot had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and dangerous, and he was justified in assuring himself that the defendant did not possess a weapon by conducting a protective frisk. See Roach,
The defendant next argues that even if the frisk was lawful, Wilmot’s questions impermissibly expanded the scope of the stop. We disagree.
“An investigatory stop may metamorphose into an overly prolonged or intrusive detention (and, thus, become unlawful).” State v. Turmel,
To determine whether the scope of a permissible stop has been exceeded, we examine whether: (1) the question is reasonably related to the initial justification for the stop; (2) the law enforcement officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion that would justify the question; and (3) in light of all the circumstances, the question impermissibly prolonged the detention or changed its fundamental nature. McKinnon-Andrews,
If the question is reasonably related to the purpose of the stop, no constitutional violation occurs. If the question is not reasonably related to the purpose of the stop, we must consider whether the law enforcement officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that would justify the question. If the question is so justified, no constitutional violation occurs. In the absence of a reasonable connection to the purpose of the stop or a reasonable, articulable suspicion, we must consider whether in light of all the circumstances and common sense, the question impermissibly prolonged the detention or changed the fundamental nature of the stop.
Id. (quotation and brackets omitted).
Although the purpose of the initial stop concerned the defendant’s violation of a traffic law, when the defendant told Andrewski that he had been involved in a fight, the purpose of the stop became, in addition, an investigation into the fight. When Wllmot arrived on the scene, he was directed to investigate the circumstances of the fight. Wilmot’s particular suspicion was that the defendant may have been the assailant in the fight. Questions regarding whether the defendant had any additional weapons on his person were reasonably related to this purpose. Accordingly, no constitutional violation occurred.
To the extent that the defendant argues that we should interpret Wilmot’s questions as asking whether he had other items on his person besides weapons, we disagree. In its order denying the defendant’s motion, the trial court implicitly found that Wilmot’s questions pertained only to weapons, and we cannot say that such a finding lacks support in the record or is clearly erroneous. See State v. Silva,
The Federal Constitution provides no greater protection than the State Constitution under these circumstances, see McKinnon-Andrews,
Affirmed.