New Hampshire Supreme Court
October 21, 2010
Oral Argument Case Summary
CASE # 1
State of New Hampshire v. Joshua Boutin (2008-0813)
Stephanie Hausman, Assistant Appellate Defender for the appellant, Joshua Boutin
Assistant Attorney General Karin M. Eckel for the appellee, State of New Hampshire
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON APPEAL
1. Did the trial judge make a mistake when he refused to throw out the evidence that was
obtained after the car was seized and searched because it was the “fruit” of an illegal
seizure? Or was he correct when he ruled that the “community caretaking” exception
applied to law enforcement activity in this case?
2. Was the defendant’s constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable seizure
violated when the state trooper pulled his cruiser up behind the defendant’s parked
vehicle, and activated his emergency blue lights, if there was no evidence that the
defendant needed assistance (such as a flat tire) or any sign of suspicious activity?
3. Does the “community caretaking” exception to the requirement for a search warrant
justify the trooper’s decision to pull up behind the car, if there is no clear indication that
the driver needed assistance?
LAW TO CONSIDER
NH Constitution, PART I, Article 19
[Art.] 19. [Searches and Seizures Regulated.] Every subject hath a right to be secure
from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all
his possessions. Therefore, all warrants to search suspected places, or arrest a person for
examination or trial in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to this right, if the
cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the
order, in a warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one
or more suspected persons or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special
designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to
be issued; but in cases and with the formalities, prescribed by law.
1
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Community Caretaking” Exception to the Warrant requirement: the NH Supreme
Court has said (State v. Boyle148 N.H. 306 (2002)) that to justify a seizure under the
community caretaking exception the law enforcement officer must point to facts which
reasonably warrant the intrusion on the privacy of the vehicle’s occupants.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On January 22, 2007 at 8:35 p.m. State Trooper Matthew Koehler saw a Jeep
Cherokee parked in a “pull off” area on the shoulder of a road in Bath, N.H., facing the
wrong direction on a snow-covered road in a dark rural area. In his investigation report,
the trooper said that the parking situation concerned him because there had been a motor
vehicle accident near that area a couple of weeks earlier, in which a vehicle parked the
same way had contributed to the collision. According to court records, the police officer
pulled up behind the Jeep, and activated his emergency blue lights to “investigate the
illegal parking and render assistance if necessary.” According to the prosecution, the
trooper “witnessed furtive movements” in the Jeep after he exited his cruiser. The
occupants “appeared to be attempting to move or retrieve something,” the trooper said.
The trooper observed that the Jeep’s engine was running, the headlights were on,
there was no flat tire or smoke coming from the hood, no hazard lights were on and the
defendant was not outside the vehicle.
The trooper asked the passenger to roll down his window, which he did, about
half way. When asked, the driver, Mr. Boutin said he was making a cell phone call at that
location on a hill since he didn’t have service at his house. According to the trooper’s
report, he told Mr. Boutin he smelled marijuana, and asked him where it was, but Mr.
Boutin said he didn’t have any and that he had not done anything wrong. The trooper said
they were “parked illegally,” were “facing the wrong direction” and that he “stopped to
render assistance,” The trooper again stated he smelled marijuana and asked if they “were
getting ready to smoke.” Boutin said he had pulled off the road into a “pull off” area and
repeated he hadn’t done anything wrong.
Mr. Boutin and his passenger were told they could leave the scene but that the car
would be “seized” until police obtained a search warrant. A warrant was obtained, the car
was searched, and the marijuana was found in the center console. Mr. Boutin was
charged with possession of marijuana in a vehicle.
After a hearing in court, a Superior Court judge agreed with the defense that a
“seizure” had occurred that evening when the trooper approached Mr. Boutin’s car and,
once the trooper activated his blue strobe light, “any reasonable person operating the
vehicle would have understood that he was not free to leave or move it further.” The
defense had argued that since the trooper did not have a warrant, the seizure was illegal
and as a result, the evidence collected after the seizure should not be used against the
2
defendant because it was “the fruit” of that illegal seizure. But, the judge said that he was
going to let the evidence of drug possession into the trial because when the trooper pulled
up behind the Jeep, and approached the vehicle, he was carrying out a reasonable exercise
of his “community caretaking duties.”
The court said that while the trooper did not immediately observe any signs that
the defendant needed assistance, the “totality of the circumstances justified making an
inquiry about whether the driver or occupants of the vehicle needed aid. The judge noted
that the NH Supreme Court has recognized in an earlier case that an aspect of a police
officer’s community caretaking function is “helping stranded motorists.” He said the
purpose of the trooper’s “investigatory stop” was to see if the occupants needed help, as
part of his community caretaking duties, and not a subterfuge for investigation. The
defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied.
In October 2008, after a two-day trial before a jury in Grafton County Superior
Court, Mr. Boutin was convicted of one misdemeanor count of possession of drugs in a
motor vehicle. He was sentenced by a judge to serve six months in jail, all but 60 days
suspended for one year on condition of good behavior. He was also given one year of
probation, lost his driver’s license for 180 days and was ordered to pay a $500 fine.
Mr. Boutin has appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court contending that his
constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure had been violated. He says the
seizure was not justified by the “community caretaking” exception.
LEGAL ISSUES
New Hampshire law says that to justify a motor vehicle “stop,” the police must
have “reasonable” suspicion, based on facts, and inferences drawn from those facts, that
the person stopped has, or is about to, commit a crime.
To determine if a “stop” is lawful, the court has to determine if the person was
“seized” and if there was reasonable suspicion that the person had committed a crime or
was about to commit a crime. One of the very few exceptions to this rule is the
“community caretaking” exception which applies when a law enforcement officer’s
actions were conducted in a manner consistent with their duty of care and obligation to
protect the public. The government contends that the police have many non-investigatory
responsibilities in their communities. If the defense argument held up in this case, then
the government says the only time police could interact with a citizen would be if there
was evidence that a crime had occurred or was about to occur.
The defense contends in this case that police officer had no indications that Mr.
Boutin needed assistance. The prosecution however says the police officer had many
reasons for checking on the car on the side of the road that night which were in keeping
with his “community caretaking” role. They note that the incident took place on a dark
rural road in winter and that there could be health concerns for the driver and the
occupant, that the car could have broken down or collided with a deer or a moose or
could have otherwise been in an accident.
A judge agreed that a “seizure” had occurred, but he allowed the evidence of
drugs to be admitted at the trial under the “community caretaking” exception.
3
QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS TO CONSIDER
Why does the constitution prevent citizens from being subjected to “unreasonable
searches and seizures?”
Why does the law say that there has to be justification for law enforcement to
“stop” a motor vehicle?
Why is there a “community caretaking” exception to that rule?
What is the government’s interest in the police having a community caretaking
function? How do you balance that against an individual’s right to freedom from
government interference?
This summary was prepared by the Judicial Branch Communications Office,
September 29, 2010.
4