NH Supreme Court - Narrows Scope of Exclusionary Rule

04/22/2008. Court Narrows Scope of the Exclusionary Rule.

State v. Joseph Panarello, No. 2007-554 (2008). This decision resolves a classic conundrum regarding the scope of the exclusionary rule. When the police violate someone's constitutional rights, and find evidence as a result, the evidence is suppressed. What happens if the police violate someone's constitutional rights, and the person reacts by committing a new crime - is the conduct suppressed? This is the type of case NH criminal defense lawyers pay close attention to.

The State conceded that the police made an unlawful warrantless entry into Panarello’s home, in violation of Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution. The State, however, appealed from the trial court’s decision to suppress evidence that Panarello reacted to the unlawful intrusion by pointing a gun at a police officer.

In an issue of first impression, the court joined “the overwhelming weight of authority” by adopting a “new crime exception” to the State Constitution’s exclusionary rule. Just as the police need to be deterred from violating the constitutional rights of citizens... citizens need to be deterred from taking the law into their own hands.

Thus, the trial court was wrong to suppress the evidence. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the trial court's order, because the prosecutor never argued the existence of a "new crime exception" to the trial court. Just as the game of Monopoly has a card entitled "Bank Error in Your Favor"... Panarello wins his case because of a card in the criminal justice deck entitled "Prosecutor Error in Your Favor." Read the State v. Panarello decision. For more information, contact a NH criminal defense attorney.