Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Gregory Davis's convictions for two counts of being a felon in possession of a dangerous weapon. The court held that the warrantless seizure of weapons from the defendant's flea-market booths was valid under the plain-view exception to the State Constitution's warrant requirement and reached the same result under the Federal Constitution. The court also held that the indictments adequately specified the charged offenses and weapons.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the warrantless seizure of weapons from Davis's flea-market booths satisfied the New Hampshire Constitution's plain-view exception to the warrant requirement.
- Whether the seizure was valid under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution.
- Whether the indictments sufficiently specified the charged weapons and otherwise provided adequate notice to permit Davis to prepare for trial and avoid double jeopardy.
Holdings
- The warrantless seizure was valid under the plain-view exception because the initial police presence was lawful, discovery of the weapons was inadvertent in the constitutional sense, and the weapons' incriminating nature was immediately apparent.
- The seizure was also valid under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because the Federal Constitution does not require inadvertent discovery for the plain-view exception.
- The indictments were sufficiently specific because they alleged the essential elements of the offenses, identified the prohibited weapon types, and stated the approximate date and location, thereby giving Davis adequate notice and protecting against double jeopardy.
- The challenge was waived because it was actually a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and was not encompassed by the notice of appeal concerning specificity of the indictment's allegations.
Key quotations
“To validate a seizure under this exception, the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) The initial intrusion which afforded the view must have been lawful; (2) the discovery of the evidence must have been inadvertent; and (3) the incriminating nature of the evidence must have been immediately apparent.”” (149 N.H. at 700-701)
“Part I, Article 15 [of the State Constitution] requires that an indictment describe the offense with sufficient specificity to ensure that the defendant can prepare for trial and avoid double jeopardy.” (149 N.H. at 704)
Factual background
An informant reported that illegal goods, including prohibited weapons, were being sold at the Salem flea market. Police conducted a planned plainclothes sweep, observed weapons openly displayed at two of Davis's booths, and seized weapons after Detective Sergeant Cavanaugh identified them as illegal and Davis admitted owning them. After police learned that Davis was a convicted felon, he was arrested and charged under RSA 159:3. The indictments identified the weapons as stiletto knives and double-edged knives.
Procedural history
Police seized weapons from Davis's booths at a flea market during a warrantless sweep and later discovered that Davis was a convicted felon. The Superior Court denied Davis's suppression motion, dismissed all but three indictments at trial, and the State elected not to proceed on one of those three. Davis was convicted on the remaining two counts and appealed. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.