State of New Hampshire v. Richard Cooley

[PDF page 1] THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2013-0670, State of New Hampshire v. Richard Cooley, III, the court on January 26, 2015, issued the following order: The defendant, Richard Cooley, III, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Nicolosi, J.) denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered in his truck, on the basis that any search was “done with the defendant’s implicit consent.” The defendant contends that: (1) the officer’s opening of the truck door constituted a search; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support that he implicitly consented to the officer opening the truck door; and (3) the doctrine of inevitable discovery is inapplicable. We affirm. Our review of the superior court’s order on a motion to suppress is de novo, except as to any controlling facts determined at the superior court level in the first instance. State v. Grey, 148 N.H. 666, 668 (2002). To establish implied consent to a search, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s conduct unambiguously manifested consent to enter. Id. at 669. This burden is satisfied if the State objectively shows that the totality of the circumstances would cause a reasonable police officer to believe he was authorized to enter. Id. As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___ (decided September 12, 2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s order, the defendant’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the defendant has not demonstrated reversible error. See id. Affirmed. CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred. Eileen Fox, Clerk