Opinion ID: 2371832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Motions to Suppress Unlawfully Obtained Statements

Text: Next, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress various items allegedly seized from his truck as the result of unlawfully obtained statements. Specifically, the defendant contends that paragraphs 4 and 9 of the affidavit submitted with the application for a search warrant rely on statements he gave in violation of his rights. He argues that those statements should be stricken from the affidavit and that without those statements, the affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause to issue a warrant for the search of his truck. In ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress the items seized from his truck, the trial court found that the police conducted a valid consensual search. According to the trial court, there was no evidence that the defendant was scared or intimidated or that the police used any improper tactics when obtaining consent. Therefore, the trial court found that the defendant had freely, knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search. A voluntary consent free of duress and coercion is a recognized exception to the need of both a warrant and probable cause. State v. Johnston, 150 N.H. 448, 453, 839 A.2d 830 (2004) (quotation omitted). The burden is on the State to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the consent was free, knowing and voluntary. Id. The validity of the consent is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances. Id. We will disturb the trial court's finding of consent only if it is not supported by the record. Id. The trial court heard from two police officers who testified that the defendant consented to a search of his home and vehicle, and that he freely signed a form indicating his consent. Also, the trial court reviewed a video taped interview with the defendant during which he signed a consent to search form without objection. Accordingly, the trial court's finding that the defendant consented to the search of his vehicle is supported by the record and will not be disturbed. Because the search of the defendant's vehicle was conducted with the consent of the defendant, we need not address his argument regarding the sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit.