Right-To-Know Law Allows Public to View Annulled Prosecution

After an annulment of a prosecution that ended in acquittal, the public still has the right to view and access records from the case surrounding the arrest and prosecution of a former defendant

Grafton Cty. Attorney's Office v. Canner, 2016 BL 272988, N.H., No. 2015-0536, 8/23/16.

   The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the state’s right-to-know law allows citizens to view the records from an annulled prosecution that ended in acquittal. The plaintiff argued that his records should be exempt from the law because an annulment treats a former defendant “in all respects” as if he was never arrested, convicted, or sentenced under state law. The court responded saying that the purpose of the annulment statute was to give a person a new start, free from stigma, not “conceal the fact that [an arrest] occurred.” Moreover, the court added that it would be “Orwellian” to require the state to deny an existence of any prosecution file.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Grafton_Cty_Attorneys_Office_v_Canner_No_20150536_2016_BL_272988_.

Sniffing Dog Does Not Violate Fourth Amendment if there are Exigent Circumstances

The use of a sniffing dog around the curtilage of a home during a hot pursuit does not violate the Fourth Amendment because there were exigent circumstances during the chase

State v. Gay, 2016 BL 240680, N.H., No. 2015-0174, 7/27/16.

    The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently ruled that police using a sniffing dog without a warrant to track an individual to the curtilage of a home does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The pursuit took place in the immediate aftermath of a murder in which a dog immediately took after the scent from some “skin rafts” and traced it to the defendant’s home. The defendant motioned to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated a similar principle established in Florida v. Jardines, in which the use of a drug sniffing dog on an unverified tip was unconstitutional. The New Hampshire Supreme Court distinguished this case, however, arguing that the exigencies of the case due to the dispersion of the scent from the “skin rafts” warranted the use of the sniffing dog. Additionally, the court noted that the level of intrusion was minimal because the dog was not used to climb onto structures in the property and after the home was identified, the officers immediately left to obtain a warrant.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Gay_No_20150174_2016_BL_240680_NH_July_27_2016_Court_Opin.