Opinion ID: 2423162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contraband

Text: The trial court must determine if the seized property is contraband. Contraband materials may fall into oneor bothof two categories: contraband per se or derivative contraband. State v. Cohen, 154 N.H. 89, 91-93, 907 A.2d 983 (2006). [C]ontraband per se is `[p]roperty whose possession is unlawful regardless of how it is used.' Id. at 92, 907 A.2d 983 (citation omitted). [D]erivative contraband is `[p]roperty whose possession becomes unlawful when it is used in committing an illegal act,' and includes tools or instrumentalities that a wrongdoer has used in the commission of a crime. Id. at 92, 907 A.2d 983 (citations omitted). If the item is determined to be contraband, then the trial court has discretion to order forfeiture and dispose of the property as the public interest requires. RSA 595-A:6; see Cohen, 154 N.H. at 94, 907 A.2d 983 (holding that denial of motion to return defendant's seized property was proper where property was contraband). If the item is not contraband, the trial court must return the property unless the State provides good cause to withhold its return. RSA 595-A:6. We have not specifically addressed which party bears the burden of proof on the contraband determination under RSA 595-A:6. However, the legislature has specifically addressed the burden of proof in the context of forfeiture under the controlled drug act, RSA chapter 318-B. RSA 318-B:17-b, IV(b) (2004) reads: [T]he state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by a preponderance of the evidence. We see no reason to deviate from that standard when an item is seized as a result of a crime that is not drug related. This is consistent with the federal standard for forfeiture of possible contraband. See United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 377-78 (3d Cir.1999). Accordingly, we hold that the State bears the burden of proof as to whether an item is contraband under RSA 595-A:6. RSA 595-A:6 does not require the submission of the NHJB-2055-DFS motion and affidavit by an individual seeking the return of seized evidence once ownership of the property in question has been established. See RSA 595-A:6. If the legislature wanted to require the submission of an NHJB-2055-DFS motion and affidavit by every movant seeking the return of a firearm under RSA 595-A:6, it could do so as it did in RSA 173-B:5, X (Supp.2009). See Dodds, 159 N.H. at 244, 982 A.2d 377 (We will neither consider what the legislature might have said nor add words that it did not see fit to include.). Unlike RSA 595-A:6, RSA 173-B:5, X requires a motion and hearing upon the expiration of a domestic violence protective order to specifically determine whether the movant is disqualified by state or federal law from possessing the firearm. RSA 173-B:5, X.