Cited by

“Because affidavits are to be interpreted in a realistic fashion and with common sense, individual items of information in an affidavit should be read not in isolation, but within the context of the entire affidavit.” State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H. 149, 153 (1998) (quotation and citation omitted).

“If older information, despite its age, contributes to an inference that probable cause exists at the time of the application,” it may be properly considered.

In analyzing the defendant’s due process claims, we look first to the New Hampshire Constitution, State v. Marti, 143 N.H. 608, 611 (1999), and cite “decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only for the purpose of aiding our State constitutional analysis,” State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H. 149, 151 (1998) (quotation omitted).

Part I, Article 19 requires that search warrants be issued only upon a finding of probable cause.

We analyze this claim first under the New Hampshire Constitution, referencing decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only *398 as analytic aids.

We first address the defendant’s argument under our State Constitution, citing federal authority only to aid our analysis.

We analyze the defendant’s constitutional claims first under the New Hampshire Constitution, referencing decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only for the purpose of aiding our State constitutional analysis.

We analyze the OCA’s constitutional claims first under the New Hampshire Constitution, referencing federal decisions only for the purpose of aiding our State constitutional analysis.

The defendant also argues that the trial court misinterpreted RSA 632-A:1, IV (1996) (amended 1999), which defines “sexual contact.” We analyze the defendant’s constitutional claims first under the New Hampshire Constitution, referencing decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only for the purpose of aiding our State constitutional analysis.

While we uphold a trial court’s findings of fact unless unsupported by the record or clearly erroneous, see State v. Roach, 141 N.H. 64, 65, 677 A.2d 157, 159 (1996), whether those facts constitute a seizure is a question of law which we review de novo, cf. State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H. 149, 152, 722 A.2d 450, 452 (1998).

We address the petitioner’s State constitutional claim first, referencing federal case law only as an analytical aid.

decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only for the purpose of aiding our State constitutional analysis.” State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H. 149, 151, 722 A.2d 450, 451 (1998) (quotation omitted).

This language requires an issuing magistrate to find probable cause.” State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H. 149, 151, 722 A.2d 450, 452 (1998) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H. 149, 152, 722 A.2d 450, 452 (1998) (evidence supporting probable cause not interpreted in hypertechnical sense).

decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions only for the purpose of aiding our State constitutional analysis.” State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H. 149, 151, 722 A.2d 450, 451 (1998) (quotation omitted).