Cited by

State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48-49 (2003); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967).

To determine whether the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a particular area, we engage in a two-part analysis.

Bazinet, 170 N.H. at 684; see also State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48-49 (2003).

The trial court applied the two-part framework established in State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 49 (2003), which provides that, for a warrantless search to be unlawful, an individual must have a legitimate expectation of privacy — both subjective and objective — in the place searched.

Alternatively, the State asks that we conclude that Sterndale has been abrogated by our decision in State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48-49 (2003), and that we adopt a “slightly more narrow exception” to the warrant requirement based upon the defendant’s diminished expectation of privacy in the “publicly visible areas of his car.” We decline to overrule Sterndale.

“Our State Constitution protects all people, their papers, their possessions and their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48 (2003) (quotation omitted); see also N.H. CONST. pt.

3 of privacy, a defendant must establish both: (1) a subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized; and (2) that his subjective expectation is legitimate because it is “one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 49 (2003) (quotations omitted).

State v. Smith, 163 N.H. 169, 172-73 (2012); see also State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48-49 (2003).

Part I, Article 19 of our State Constitution protects all people, their papers, their possessions and their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures.

We review the superior court’s order on a motion to suppress de novo, except as to any controlling facts determined by the superior court in the first instance.

To determine whether a warrantless search may give rise to a violation of the State Constitution, we apply an expectation of privacy analysis.

“Our State Constitution protects all people, their papers, their possessions and their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48 (2003) (quotation omitted).

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967); State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48-49 (2003).

“Our State Constitution protects all people, their papers, their possessions and their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48 (2003) (quotation omitted).

recognized that an expectation of privacy plays a role in the protection afforded under Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution.” State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48 (2003).

at 654-55; see State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48-49 (2003) (adopting the reasonable expectation of privacy analysis under Part I, Article 19).

It particularly protects people from unreasonable police entries into their private homes, because of the heightened expectation of privacy given to one’s dwelling.” State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46, 48 (2008) (quotation omitted).