Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Cory MacElman’s conviction for possession of controlled drugs. It held that police entry onto the defendant’s property and approach to an occupied vehicle were justified under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement, and that marijuana observed in plain view could be seized.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the warrantless entry onto the defendant's property and approach to the vehicle were justified under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.
- Whether the emergency aid exception requires reasonable grounds to believe an emergency exists, an objectively reasonable basis approximating probable cause associating the emergency with the place searched, and an absence of a primary motive to arrest or seize evidence.
- Whether the marijuana observed from a lawful position could be seized under the plain-view doctrine.
Holdings
- The police were entitled to enter the property and approach the vehicle under the emergency aid exception because the totality of the circumstances provided reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency existed and immediate assistance might be necessary.
- The State established an objectively reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the reported emergency with the defendant's property.
- The emergency aid exception applied because the police intrusion was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest the occupants or seize evidence.
- The officer could seize the marijuana and arrest the defendant under the plain-view doctrine because the initial intrusion was lawful, the discovery was inadvertent, and the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent.
Key quotations
“The “emergency aid” exception, on the other hand, applies when police officers are performing duties “‘totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. ’”” (798)
“The State must show: (1) the police have objectively “reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property”; (2) there is an objectively “reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched”; and (3) the search is not “primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence.”” (798-799)
Factual background
Police received an anonymous report that a vehicle behind the defendant's residence might go over an embankment onto Interstate 89. At the residence, an officer observed an occupied vehicle parked in an unusual location near the property boundary and embankment, but darkness and an obstructed view prevented him from determining whether anyone needed assistance. The officer entered the backyard to investigate and saw the occupants smoking marijuana in the vehicle; he then seized the contraband and arrested the defendant.
Procedural history
The Lebanon District Court denied the defendant's suppression motion, concluding that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances because the officers had reasonable grounds to believe an emergency existed. The defendant was convicted and appealed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, which affirmed.