Cited by

Id.; see also State v. Beauchesne, 151 N.H. 803, 818 (2005) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is.

State v. Beauchesne, 151 N.H. 803, 812 (2005); see State v. Daoud, 158 N.H. 779, 782 (2009).

“Not all interactions between the police and citizens involve a seizure of the person.” State v. Beauchesne, 151 N.H. 803, 809 (2005).

Although we have recognized that our constitution does, in some circumstances, provide greater protection than the Federal Constitution, see, e.g., State v. Beauchesne, 151 N.H. 803, 812 (2005), this is not such a case.

“An investigatory stop is a very limited seizure.” State v. Beauchesne, 151 N.H. 803, 809 (2005).

“In reviewing the trial court’s rulings, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.” State v. Beauchesne, 151 N.H. 803, 809 (2005).

Evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights under Part I, Article 19 is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.

The purpose of the exclusionary rule is three-fold.

An investigatory stop is a limited seizure.

For a police officer to undertake an investigatory stop, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion — based upon specific, articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts — that the person stopped has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.

In reviewing the trial court’s rulings, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

A police encounter with a citizen does not always amount to a seizure of the person.

By enacting this section, the legislature articulated a policy that individuals are to follow the commands of law enforcement officials, because doing so fosters the effective administration of justice, discourages self-help, and provides for the safety of officers.