Court Opinion

ID: 9652135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:18:35.886552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:48.671050
License: Public Domain

HICKS, J.,
dissenting. Because I believe that the trial court misapplied the exigent circumstances test, I respectfully dissent.
When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the record or are clearly erroneous. State v. Pseudae, 154 N.H. 196, 199 (2006). The trial court’s legal conclusions are subject to de novo review. Id. Here, the trial court’s factual findings lack support in the record. Accordingly, I would reverse its conclusions.
As an initial matter, I note that the majority, for purposes of this appeal, assumed, without deciding, that the expectation of privacy of the occupant of a hotel room is equivalent to that of persons in their own homes. Cf. State v. Watson, 151 N.H. 537, 540 (2004) (agreeing with the defendant within a voluntariness of consent totality analysis that “the privacy interest in a *111hotel room is comparable to that of the home”). Presumably then, the majority would allow warrantless entry into a home based upon the facts before us. Given that “[t]he search of a home is subject to a particularly stringent warrant requirement because the occupant has a high expectation of privacy,” Pseudae, 154 N.H. at 199, such a precedent is unsettling.
Under Part I, Article 19, warrantless entries are per se unreasonable and illegal unless they fall within a clearly defined exception to the warrant requirement. See id. The State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such an entry falls within an exception. State v. Stern, 150 N.H. 705, 708 (2004); see also Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50 (1984) (noting that “the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches”). My review of the record shows that the State failed to meet that burden. To me, a failure to overturn the trial court effectively shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.
“Exigent circumstances exist where the police face a compelling need for immediate official action and a risk that the delay inherent in obtaining a warrant will present a substantial threat of imminent danger to life or public safety or create a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed.” Pseudae, 154 N.H. at 200 (emphases added). Whether exigent circumstances exist is judged by a totality of the circumstances. Stem, 150 N.H. at 709. This totality review “includes an examination of the overall reasonableness of the police officers’ behavior prior to the entry,” but no single factor controls the inquiry. State v. Santana, 133 N.H. 798, 804 (1991) (quotations omitted). Thus, although the trial court relied heavily upon its view of the reasonableness of the officers’ conduct, that factor alone is not conclusive of exigency.
The requirement of a compelling need for immediate official action underscores the limited nature of the exigency exception. If applied too liberally, the exigency exception readily swallows the rule that warrantless entries are per se unreasonable. See State v. Ricci, 144 N.H. 241, 244 (1999). It is instead the Fourth Amendment (and Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution) that “should receive a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachment upon or gradual depreciation of the rights secured by [it], by imperceptible practice of courts or by well-intentioned but mistakenly over-zealous executive officers.” Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 304 (1921) (quotations omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967).
To determine whether the police in this case were presented with a compelling need for immediate action based upon a likelihood of evidence destruction, an examination of the specific facts is necessary. See Santana, *112133 N.H. at 803-04. Helpful in this determination are five factors articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:
(1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed; (3) the possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of the contraband while a search warrant is sought; (4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail; and (5) the ready destructibility of the contraband and the knowledge that efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are characteristic behavior of persons engaged in the narcotics traffic.
United States v. Rubin, 474 F.2d 262, 268-69 (3d Cir.) (citations and quotation omitted), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 833 (1973); see also 2 W. LaFAVE, Criminal Procedure § 3.6(e), at 255-56 (3d ed. 2007) (deeming the Rubin factors the “most careful treatment of this point”).
Here, the police initially perceived the smell of burning marijuana. Corporal Roberts testified that the officers decided to knock because they were “hoping for cooperation from the individuals on the inside.” After they knocked on the door they heard “scurrying,” and at one point, the room’s occupants fell quiet and expressed concern for police presence. These facts “do not rise to the level of urgency demonstrated in previous cases where we have upheld warrantless emergency entries into private dwellings.” Pseudae, 154 N.H. at 201 (distinguishing cases where a gunshot was heard from within a home and where the police believed a sniper was shooting from within). Similarly, nothing in the record suggests that it was impracticable or even inconvenient for the officers to obtain a warrant without unreasonable delay prior to entry. To the contrary, the officers were in fact able to obtain a warrant with apparent ease after they entered the room. The State does not argue otherwise. Thus, the first Rubin factor is not indicative of exigency.
As for the second factor, neither officer testified that they entered the room before obtaining a warrant because they were concerned with evidence destruction or removal. Rather, when the defendant answered the door, the officers were hit with a “visible haze of marijuana smoke,” and made a decision to “seize th[e] room pending application of a search warrant.” Any suggestion upon these facts that evidence would be destroyed is speculative at best — hardly indicative of a compelling need for official action. See State v. Morse, 125 N.H. 403, 409 (1984) (“Mere speculation about the possibility of destruction of evidence is insufficient to support a claim of exigency.”). Without some evidence of actual destruction, a warrantless search cannot be sustained.
*113In addition, there is nothing in the record suggesting that the officers were ever in any danger, and the possessors of the contraband were aware that the police were on their trail only after the officers knocked. Only the fifth Rubin factor is satisfied, but this factor is satisfied in any case involving the possession of contraband and seems only to acknowledge the self-evident truth that most people seek to avoid criminal penalties. “That contraband is easily removed, hidden, or destroyed is not, in and of itself, an exigent circumstance.” State v. Dorson, 615 P.2d 740, 746 (Haw. 1980).
If there were any real possibility of evidence destruction in this case, it occurred only after the police made their presence known, as opposed to those cases where the police “were confronted with a situation in which their presence was known to the occupants.” Rideout v. State, 122 P.3d 201, 208 (Wyo. 2005); see also Santana, 133 N.H. at 805 (“The police may not create exigency in order to justify their warrantless entry.”). The potential for flushing drugs down the toilet, for example, is likely only after the possessors are concerned with police surveillance. Cf. State v. Duran, 156 P.3d 795, 798 (Utah 2007) (“It is ... unlikely that a person in possession of contraband, like marijuana, would be so consumed by paranoia as to dispose of the contraband . . . having no reason to suspect that law enforcement might be alerted to the illegal activities”).
Some jurisdictions hold that the odor of burning marijuana “is itself proof that evidence of criminal conduct is being destroyed.” State v. Hess, 680 N.W.2d 314, 325 (S.D. 2004) (citing cases). Others have refused to find exigent circumstances based solely upon the odor of marijuana smoke. See, e.g., Dorson, 615 P.2d at 746 (“[W]hile the smell of marijuana may establish probable cause, it is not an exigent circumstance that will justify a warrantless entry.”); People v. Cohen, 496 N.E.2d 1231, 1235 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (“[H]aving probable cause from the odor of burning cannabis will not alone justify an officer to enter and search a private residence”), appeal denied, 505 N.E.2d 356 (Ill. 1987); State v. Schur, 538 P.2d 689, 694 (Kan. 1975) (“Absent a showing of circumstances indicating the likely destruction of evidence, other than defendant’s refusal of entry, the observation of a yellow, rolled cigarette in plain view and the detection of an odor similar to burning marijuana would not authorize a search of the premises without a valid warrant or consent.”); Howe v. State, 916 P.2d 153, 161 (Nev. 1996) (holding that exigent circumstances did not support warrantless entry based upon the smell of burning marijuana); Duran, 156 P.3d at 797 (“The aroma of burning marijuana must be accompanied by some evidence that the suspects are disposing of the evidence, as opposed to casually consuming it,” before the exigency exception applies.). The majority correctly points out that several jurisdictions holding that the smell of burning marijuana itself does not constitute exigency rely upon a distinction *114between minor and serious offenses. However, none of the jurisdictions cited above based their holdings upon such a distinction.
Moreover, in one of the first cases to contemplate an exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, the United States Supreme Court declined to apply the exception to facts similar to those here. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15 (1948). While acknowledging that odors alone could provide probable cause to justify issuance of a search warrant, the Court concluded that the odor of burning opium itself did not justify the warrantless search of a hotel room. Id. at 13,15. The Court noted that there was no flight risk, the search was of permanent premises rather than a movable vehicle, and “[n]o evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction.” Id. at 15.
While the majority expressly disclaims deciding that the odor of burning marijuana alone establishes exigent circumstances per se, it also affirms the trial court’s finding of exigent circumstances prior to the police officers knocking on the defendant’s hotel room door. Given that the only evidence at that point was the odor of burning marijuana, it is difficult to square this disclaimer with the facts of the case. Regardless, to me, the majority’s decision is a departure from our established warrantless entry jurisprudence.
This case exemplifies why the Utah Supreme Court declined “to grant the aroma of burning marijuana a place on an exclusive, limited roster of exceptions” to the warrant requirement and held that such aroma “must be accompanied by some evidence that the suspects are disposing of the evidence, as opposed to casually consuming it,” before the exigency exception may apply. Duran, 156 P.3d at 797. As the Utah Supreme Court reasoned:
[T]he costs that would accompany a merger of consumption of contraband and destruction of evidence — i.e., an increase in questionable warrantless searches, a corresponding decrease in personal privacy, a decreased incentive for law enforcement to seek a warrant before conducting a search, and a further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections — outweigh the benefits accruing to the state in more efficient law enforcement.
Id. at 798-99.
Without making that explicit holding here, I would simply hold that the totality of the circumstances in this case did not present a compelling need for immediate official action. The State offers no substantive evidence justifying the failure to obtain a warrant, and convenience alone does not justify this failure. See Morse, 125 N.H. at 409 (“[T]hat police operations would be more efficient if the warrant requirement were ignored” is *115insufficient to prove exigency.). The officers had time to obtain a warrant, they were not confronted with reasonably certain evidence destruction, neither an officer nor anyone else was in danger, and the room’s occupants were not aware of the officers’ presence until the officers knocked. If there were any circumstances approaching exigency, they were created by the officers’ decision to make their presence known rather than secure a search warrant. “If the officers in this case were excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate, it is difficult to think of a case in which it should be required.” Johnson, 333 U.S. at 15. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would reverse the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress.