Cited by

State v. Szczerbiak, 148 N.H. 352, 355 (2002) (declining to consider argument that State raised for first time on appeal that was contrary to its assertion before trial court).

Where it exists, “absolute temporal proximity” weighs against a conclusion that the taint of the unlawful arrest was purged because of the risk that the defendant felt some compulsion to consent, given that “he believed he was still under the lawful authority of the officer.” Hight, 146 N.H. at 750; see also State v. Szczerbiak, 148 N.H. 352, 356 (2002); Cowles, 152 N.H. at 372.

However, the defendant did not make this latter argument to the trial court and thus we deem it unpreserved for appellate review.

In doing so, an officer may ask a moderate number of questions to obtain identifying information and to confirm or dispel his suspicions.

As we have previously observed, one of the reasons that we require the State to prove that any taint of an illegal action has been purged is to deter police misconduct.

“Once an officer is justified in making an investigatory stop, he may also conduct a protective frisk if the officer reasonably believes the individual is armed and presently dangerous.” State v. Szczerbiak, 148 N.H. 352, 355 (2002) (quotation omitted).

Because no such opportunity for consideration was given here, we decline to address this argument.

“Under the New Hampshire Constitution, all warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless they conform to the narrow confines of a judicially recognized exception.” State v. Szczerbiak, 148 N.H. 352, 354 (2002) (quotation omitted).

“Consequently, the [State] and the trial court never had the opportunity to consider that legal issue or the development of facts that might or might not have supported that argument.” State v. Szczerbiak, 148 N.H. 352, 356 (2000) (quotation omitted).

An officer may make an investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific articulable facts that the person stopped is engaged in criminal activity.

To determine whether a search has exceeded the scope of the permission granted, we ask whether under the circumstances surrounding the search, it was objectively reasonable for the officers conducting the search to believe that the defendant had consented to it.

“Our review of the superior court’s order on a motion to suppress is de novo, except as to any controlling facts determined at the superior court level in the first instance.” State v. Szczerbiak, 148 N.H. 352, 354 (2002) (quotation omitted).

During a stop, an officer may ask a detainee a moderate number of questions to determine the detainee’s identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions.

Terry, 392 U.S. at 20-29; State v. Szczerbiak, 148 N.H. 352, 355 (2002); Pellicci, 133 N.H. at 528-29.