Cited by

Ct. R. 94 (State bears *777 burden of proof at suppression hearings); cf. State v. Martin, 145 N.H. 362, 364 (2000) (State bears burden of establishing legality of search at suppression hearing); State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 595 (1985) (State had burden to justify defendant’s detention as a legitimate investigatory stop).

State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 595 (1985); see also State v. Schneider, 124 N.H. 242, 243 (1983).

State v. Parker, 127 N.H. 525, 531 (1985) (officer “may take whatever additional action which would warrant a man of reasonable caution under the circumstances to take” (quotations omitted)); State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 595-96 (1985) (questioning within scope because officer’s suspicion not yet dispelled and stop lasted three minutes); Glaude, 131 N.H. at 222 (permissible to ask defendant for name and vehicle registration because this was “the routine and prudent first step in any investigative

Because the New Hampshire Constitution is at least as protective as the Federal Constitution in this area, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis, see State v. McLellan, 139 N.H. 132, 136-37 (1994), and cite federal law only to aid our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594 (1985).

We will first examine the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), utilizing cases from federal courts and other jurisdictions to aid in our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985); State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232-33, 471 A.2d 347, 351-52 (1983).

V, XIV We address Dr. Grimm’s State constitutional claim first, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law solely to aid in our analysis.

We first address the petitioner’s arguments under our State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), and consider federal law solely as an analytical aid.

We address the defendant’s claim first under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), relying on federal cases only as an aid to our analysis, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We decide this case based on our interpretation of the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), using federal law only as a guide to our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

The scope of the stop “must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification” — to confirm or dispel the officer’s particular suspicion — and “must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 595, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We address the defendant’s arguments first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), considering federal law only as an analytical aid, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We base our decision on the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and cite federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), considering federal law only as an analytical aid, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We look to the decisions of other jurisdictions for assistance in resolving the State constitutional issues before us. See State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We first address the plaintiff’s claim under the State Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. at 231, 471 A.2d at 350, citing federal law only as it aids our analysis.

We analyze his claim under the State Constitution first, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), citing federal cases only as they are useful to our analysis, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We cite “decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of courts of other jurisdictions for their helpfulness in analyzing and deciding the State issue.” State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We cite federal eases only as an aid to our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985), because the New Hampshire Constitution is at least as protective as the Federal Constitution in this area.

The New Hampshire Constitution is at least as protective as the Federal Constitution in this area, and we therefore decide this case under the State Constitution, employing federal cases to aid in our analysis.

We first address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only as an aid to our analysis.

We address the defendant’s claim under the State Constitution first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and cite federal law only as an aid to our analysis.

In deciding this case, we first look to our own State Constitution, and then, if necessary, to the Federal Constitution to determine whether it provides the plaintiffs greater rights, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), citing decisions of federal courts and courts of other jurisdictions when helpful in analyzing and deciding the State issue.

Because the free speech rights of government employees are granted at least as much protection under the New Hampshire Constitution as under the United States Constitution, we make no separate federal analysis, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983), and cite federal cases as an aid to our analysis.

In assessing this claim, we cite “decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of courts of other jurisdictions for their helpfulness in analyzing and deciding the State issue.” State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985); see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-32, 471 A.2d 347, 350-51 (1983).

We address Dr. Smith’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only if it aids our analysis.

In deciding this case, we first look to our own State Constitution, and then if necessary to the Federal Constitution to determine whether it provides the defendant greater protection, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), citing decisions of federal courts and courts of other jurisdictions when helpful in analyzing and deciding the State issue.

We address the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), considering federal law only as an analytical aid, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

Where, as here, the Federal Constitution provides no greater protection to the defendant, State v. LaFountain, 138 N.H. 225, 227, 636 A.2d 1028, 1029 (1994), we make no separate federal analysis.

We base our decision on the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and cite federal law only to aid our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We base our decision on our interpretation of the due process clause of the New Hampshire Constitution, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), and use federal decisions only as occasional guides to our analysis, see State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only to aid our analysis.

We address Dr. Grimm’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only if it aids our analysis.

We address the defendant’s State constitutional claim first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing federal law only to aid our analysis.

We independently consider the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing to federal law only as an aid in our analysis, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We independently consider the defendant’s claims first under the State Constitution, State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983), citing to federal law only as an aid in our analysis, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 594, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

The defendant concedes that the police had sufficient justification to seize him for a brief investigative stop.

We have never had occasion to decide “whether the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine would forbid reliance on illegally obtained evidence for the purpose of establishing probable cause.” State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 599, 493 A.2d 1139, 1146 (1985).

To this end, we require the investigating officer to have undertaken the stop on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that the person detained had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime, State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 595, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985), and we insure that the adequacy of this suspicion is the subject of neutral scrutiny by requiring the officer to ‘“be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, re

State v. Brodeur, supra at 415, 493 A.2d at 1137-38; see also State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 595, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983); State v. Maya, 126 N.H. 590, 595, 493 A.2d 1139, 1143 (1985).

We have held.that even where such tracking evidence was insufficient, in and of itself, to establish probable cause, it was nevertheless entitled to some weight as an indicator of the path which the perpetrator of a crime had taken from the crime scene.

He argues that the victim’s testimony would not have been discovered without the illegal stop, and is thus the “fruit of a poisonous tree” because it was tainted by the illegality of the stop.

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).