The NH State Constitution

 Before we proceed to the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, we have to first acknowledge the State of NH Constitution which has a very similar amendment (ART 19) which restricts searches of private property by law enforcement. Since 1983, the NH Courts will consider applying the State Constitution in all search without a warrant cases, and, in some cases rule that the State Constitution is stricter on warrant less searches than the Federal Constitution. So even if the police are following the rules under the Federal Constitution, they could possibly violate the rules of the State Constitution and wind up with the evidence being ruled inadmissible. While this state rule has been very strictly applied by NH in automobile cases over the last two decades, the NH Supreme Court in 2017, relaxed the rule for contraband items that are in plain view. The cases below illustrate how the NH court interprets the NH State Constitution regarding warrant-less automobile searches over the years. READ State v Ball – NH State Constitution can afford more protection,http://www.leagle.com/decision/1983350124NH226_1316/STATE%20v.%20BALL State of NH v Sterndale (1995), automobile search requires warrant even though Federal Constitution does not,http://www.leagle.com/decision/1995584139NH445_1512/STATE%20v.%20STERNDALE Review the above two NH search and seizure cases. Under both of these cases the NH police officers actions would have been legal under the Federal Fourth Amendment case law. The NH Supreme Court decided to apply the cases to the NH Constitution, Art 19, and ruled the police searches invalid, asserting that the State Constitution affords even more protection than the Federal Constitution. 1. What is your read on these cases. Why do you think the NH court departed from established federal case law and ruled the way it did? 2. Now read the State of NH v Daniel Cora case decided in June 2017, https://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2017/2017040cora.pdf Contrast this case with State v Ball decided in 1983 ruling that a partially burned marijuana cigarette did not meet plain view requirements, and the Sterndale case in 1995 requiring police to obtain warrants for automobile searches. In both cases the court relied heavily on the NH Constitution and established that citizens in NH had more protection under it. In 2017 the NH Supreme Court held in Cora that police could now seize contraband inside a vehicle, without first obtaining a warrant, if it was in plain view. This was a change from past precedents finding the state Constitution banning most warrantless searches. Why do you believe the Court ruled the way it did in 2017?