Opinion ID: 2681754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: References to The First Search

Text: The defendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because Conway’s affidavit referenced the “evidence that was illegally seized pursuant to the first warrant.” The defendant contends that these references “prejudiced what should have been a fair and impartial determination of whether probable cause existed.” We note that the defendant 7 does not argue that the police violated his state and federal constitutional rights by maintaining possession of the computer between the suppression of the first warrant and the grant of the second warrant. The State responds that, after excising all references to the first warrant, Conway’s affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause. We agree with the State. In the affidavit for the second warrant, Conway set forth the information provided by the defendant’s ex-wife, and also described: (1) that the police had seized the defendant’s computer under the first warrant; (2) that the computer was released for forensic analysis and the timeline of that analysis; and (3) that in the analysis, the police found images on the defendant’s computer, which led to the first charges for possession of child pornography. “A warrant based in part upon illegally seized evidence is nonetheless valid so long as there was enough other evidence to establish probable cause.” State v. Orde, 161 N.H. 260, 269 (2010). “Thus, to test the validity of a search warrant issued upon an affidavit referencing illegally seized evidence, the reviewing court excises the tainted information and examines the remaining information to determine whether it establishes probable cause.” Id. Here, given that the first warrant was invalid, evidence obtained pursuant to the first warrant must be excised and cannot be used to establish probable cause for issuance of the second search warrant. See State v. Newcomb, 161 N.H. 666, 672-73 (2011). We conclude that, after striking the references to the illegally seized evidence, Conway’s affidavit established probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. We agree with the trial court that the references to the first warrant contained in Conway’s affidavit provided only the procedural history of the case “necessary to evaluate whether the computer was handled and stored in a manner that preserved the evidence which might be contained on the computer.” The detailed information furnished by the defendant’s ex-wife provided a sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause. To the extent that the defendant argues that the second search warrant violated his rights under the Federal Constitution because its supporting application referenced the first warrant, he has not adequately developed this argument for our review, so we decline to address it. See State v. Euliano, 161 N.H. 601, 608 (2011).