Cited by

“One such exception exists for exigent circumstances that make it impracticable to obtain a warrant.” State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 673 (1998).

“Reasonable suspicion is an analysis of ‘the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.’” Yarbrough, 961 F.3d at 1163 (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989)); see State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 674 (1998).

on is important factor in custody determination); see also State v. Dedrick, 132 N.H. 218, 225 (1989) (finding custody, in part, because intensity of the interview escalated when the officers accused the defendant of untruths and stated “time and again” that it was the defendant who had killed the victim), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Ford, 144 N.H. 57, 62-63 (1999); cf. State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 675 (1998) (concluding that the defendant was not in custody, in part, because the “qu

“A warrantless search is per se unreasonable and invalid unless it comes within one of a few recognized exceptions.” State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 673 (1998) 3 (quotation omitted).

State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 675 (1998) (stating interrogation required for Miranda to apply).

“A warrantless search is per se unreasonable and invalid unless it comes within one of a few recognized exceptions.” State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 673 (1998) (quotation omitted).

State v. Steimel, 155 N.H. 141, 146 (2007) (observing that officer’s confronting defendant with suspicions constituted a “relevant factor,” but concluding no custody because confrontation “occurred near the end of an otherwise general and casual conversation”); cf. State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 671, 675 (1998) (concluding no custody, in part, when questioning was of a “purely general nature,” concerning defendant’s identity and reason for being in park); State v. Green, 133 N.H. 249, 258 (1990)

*798 One such exception, which the State argues applies here, exists where police have probable cause to enter a home and exigent circumstances make it impracticable to obtain a warrant beforehand.

endant’s position would believe himself in custody, the trial court should consider “the totality of the circumstances of the encounter, including ‘the suspect’s familiarity with his surroundings, the number of officers present, the degree to which the suspect was physically restrained, and the interview’s duration and character.’ ” State v. Grey, 148 N.H. 666, 670 (2002) (quoting State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 675 (1998)).

Exigent circumstances “refer to those situations in which law enforcement agents will be unable or unlikely to effectuate an arrest, search, or seizure, for which probable cause exists, unless they act swiftly and, without seeking prior judicial authorization.” State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 673 (1998) (quotation omitted).

Exigent circumstances “refer to those situations in which law enforcement agents will be unable or unlikely to effectuate an arrest, search, or seizure, for which probable cause exists, unless they act swiftly and, without seeking prior judicial authorization.” State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 673 (1988) (quotation omitted).

When deciding whether there is custody when there has been no formal arrest, we must determine the degree to which the suspect’s freedom of movement was curtailed by considering how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation.

If so, we then will decide whether the defendant legally was “in custody” during his alleged unlawful interrogation.

*194 “A warrantless search is per se unreasonable and invalid unless it comes within one of a few recognized exceptions.” State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 673 (1998) (quotation omitted).

After examining the relevant federal cases, the trial court ruled that the defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel was ineffective because he was not “in custody.” See State v. Graca, 142 N.H. 670, 675 (1998).

In order for Miranda warnings to be required there must be a custodial interrogation by the police.

In order for Miranda warnings to be required there must be a custodial interrogation by the police.

V. In order to trigger Miranda protections, the defendant must be subjected to a custodial interrogation.