Cited by

4 “A lapse of time, alone, between a suspected crime and the issuance of a warrant is not conclusive as to probable cause; rather it must be considered with all the other circumstances, including the nature of the criminal activity and the items sought.” State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248 (1983).

However, “they need not establish with certainty, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, that the search will lead to the desired result.” State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 280 (1983).

Where, as here, the passage of time between the suspected criminal activity and the application for the warrant is at issue, other circumstances, such as the nature of the activity and the items sought, must also be considered in determining whether probable cause exists.

Accordingly, we “interpret the evidence submitted in support of a warrant in a commonsense manner, giving due consideration to the preference to be accorded warrants.” State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 280 (1983).

that what is sought, if not contraband or fruits or implements of a crime, will ‘aid in a particular apprehension or conviction.’” State v. Jaroma, 128 N.H. 423, 428, 514 A.2d 1274, 1277 (1986) (quoting State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 279-80 (1983) (citation omitted)).

Indeed, complete certainty has never been required by this court when determining whether probable cause to search exists.

Speaking of the probable cause as “stale” in such a case merely reflects the requirement that “the police must show that at the time of the application for the warrant there is a substantial likelihood of finding the [evidentiary material specified].” State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 280 (1983).

that what is sought, if not contraband or fruits or implements of a crime, will “aid in a particular apprehension or conviction.” ’ ” State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 279-80 (1983) (quoting State v. Doe, 115 N.H. 682, 685, 371 A.2d 167, 169 (1975)).

To obtain a search warrant, the police must show that at the time of the application for the warrant there is a substantial likelihood of finding the items sought; they need not establish with certainty, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, that the search will lead to the desired result.” State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 279-80 (1983) *74 (quoting State v. Doe, 115 N.H. 682, 685, 371 A.2d 167, 169 (1975)) (citations omitted).

To obtain a search warrant, the police must show that at the time of the application for the warrant there is a substantial likelihood of finding the items sought; they need not establish with certainty, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, that the search will lead to the desired result.” State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 279-80 (1983) (quoting State v. Doe, 115 N.H. 682, 685, 371 A.2d 167, 169 (1975)).

We have held that in order “[t]o obtain a search warrant, the police must show that at the time of the application for the warrant there is a substantial likelihood of finding the items sought; they need not establish with certainty, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, that the search will lead to the desired result.” State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 280 (1983).

State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 247, 459 A.2d 278, 279 (1983); Hampton Indoor Tennis Ctr., Inc. v. St.

Even if there were insufficient substantiation of the reliability and credibility of the informant, there would remain a substantial likelihood of finding drugs at the defendant’s residence.

We do not address additional arguments or the remaining issue raised in the defendant’s brief because they are not properly before us. See State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 247, 459 A.2d 278, 279 (1983) (failure to submit original affidavit to the court); State v. Hebert, 122 N.H. 1089, 1090, 453 A.2d 1310, 1311 (1982) (failure to provide transcript of a hearing).

The State must support an application for a search warrant “with evidence of probable cause in order to demonstrate to the issuing magistrate that there is a substantial likelihood of finding incriminating evidence at the place to be searched.” State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 596, 493 A.2d 1139, 1144 (1985); State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 280 (1983).

A search warrant application must be supported with evidence of probable cause in order to demonstrate to the issuing magistrate that there is a substantial likelihood of finding incriminating evidence at the place to be searched.

State v. Carroll, 120 N.H. 458, 460-61, 417 A.2d 8, 10 (1980); see State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 247, 459 A.2d 278, 279 (1983).

In conclusion, we note that the passage of time is but one factor in determining the existence of probable cause.

These requirements would be in addition to the minimum constitutional requirements for the issuance of a search warrant.

will ‘aid in a particular apprehension or conviction.’” State v. Doe, 115 N.H. 682, 685, 371 A.2d 167, 169 (1975) (citations omitted); see State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 248, 459 A.2d 278, 279-80 (1983); see also Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 556-57 & n.6 (1978).

Thus, the issue of whether the prejudicial effect of admitting the rifle and the shotgun was greater than their probative value as evidence is not properly before us. See State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 247, 459 A.2d 278, 279 (1983); State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 83, 427 A.2d 1, 2-3 (1981).