CONCORD - After two judges dismissed evidence in two separate criminal cases, both related to stops by the same state trooper, the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed an expansive request for records about the New Hampshire State Police Mobile Enforcement Team.

One of the cases ended with a federal judge dismissing evidence, including 400 grams of fentanyl, seized on Interstate 95 in North Hampton. U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty ruled in that case Trooper Michael Arteaga had unconstitutionally prolonged a traffic stop, leading to the discovery of the fentanyl in a car driven by John Enrique Hernandez of Lawrence, Massachusetts.

The second case resulted in tossed evidence in a case against Brian Joesph Perez and Jose Mario Melendez, following a traffic stop on I-95, also by Trooper Arteaga. Rockingham County Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman granted a motion to suppress unspecified evidence found during the stop he described as unconstitutionally prolonged.

Both stops were in March 2018.

Based on rulings in both cases, ACLU-NH attorney Gilles Bissonette filed a request for records about the New Hampshire State Police Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) with David Hilts, legal counsel for the Department of Safety. Seacoast Media Group is a party to the Right to Know request.

Hiltz replied Friday, "due to the ongoing public health state of emergency related to COVID-19 declared on March 13, 2020, at both the state and federal level, we will not be able to continue work on your request until this emergency is over." When it’s over, he wrote, he will notify the ACLU-NH and SMG.

Bissonnette’s request for information includes documents showing if the trooper in both cases is still on patrol on behalf of state police. He said he did not know what evidence was dismissed in the county court case and it is not cited in Schulman’s order dismissing it.

Bissonnette said obtaining information about the MET is important because the recent criminal cases show MET, "patrols the state’s highways and that this team has a policy of engaging in ’pretextual’ stops."

"A pretextual stop is one in which a police officer uses a traffic violation as an excuse to stop a driver that the officer wants to stop for other reasons, like investigating an unrelated, suspected criminal offense," Bissonette said. "These stops present serious civil liberties concerns because they allow the police to stop motorists under subjective traffic laws that most people violate every time they drive."

He said police know if they follow any driver long enough, "they can almost certainly find a reason for stopping the vehicle and conducting an informal roadside investigation."

"Due to the largely limitless nature of such stops, it creates an inherently racist dynamic where there is the potential to racial profile motorists," he said. "We’ve seen too many times across the country how improper stops and searches create a very real risk for people of color, particularly for black men."

Bissonnette said the records request "attempts to learn more about the state police’s policy of these types of stops and how it has operated, as well as learn how many people the state police have stopped where the subsequent roadside investigation yielded no criminal activity."

The request seeks documents outlining all policies, procedures, and standards, including those memorialized in emails, concerning the MET, including policies authorizing pretextual stops. It seeks documents related to policy about how and whether to prolong a stop "or otherwise use the stop to conduct a drug investigation.

Also sought are state police records pertaining to policies, procedures and standards involving so-called "whisper stops."

Bissonnette describes those as "A ’whisper stop’ occurs when one law enforcement agency (usually a federal agency) passes along information to local authorities to use in identifying a suspect traveling in a vehicle. Once identified, the local authorities find an independent reason to stop the vehicle, without relying on the tip to justify the traffic stop. After the vehicle is stopped for a purportedly neutral reason (usually a traffic violation), the stopping officer then tries to develop independent reasonable suspicion to conduct what is typically a drug investigation, again without relying on the tip."

The records request seeks complaints, incident reports, interview/police reports, call/dispatch logs, tickets, summonses, and police officer narratives for all "whisper stops" that did not result in criminal charges, during the past 14 months.

It seeks records for all stops by the MET that led to citations and the names of all state troopers on the MET during that time.

In his October order, Judge Schulman noted the trooper reported the then-defendants said they were going to Augusta, Maine, and that is a known drug-trafficking destination. They were in a car owned by the driver’s former wife.

"There is nothing inherently incriminating about traveling to Augusta (and the undersigned judge travels near there several times each year, often in vehicle registered to his wife who has different last name)," the judge wrote. "It is the capital city of Maine."

The judge listed a host of reasons why someone might not want to tell a trooper on a traffic stop about why they are going to Maine. Then, Schulman wrote, "In the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of some actual crime, the officer cannot continue to detain the driver and passenger in order to get to the bottom of their plans. After all, unless those plans involved crime, they would not be the trooper’s business in the first place."

Schulman also disagreed with the trooper that there was nothing suspicious about the driver having his hands in the 10-and-2 position on the steering wheel, or that the passenger was reclined, and that they did not look at him while passing his unmarked cruiser parked at the Hampton tolls.

In the federal case, Judge McCafferty wrote, "This stop should have ended once the trooper learned that the driver’s license was valid and there were no outstanding warrants. By prolonging the stop beyond that point and asking the driver to exit his car to further investigate, the trooper violated the Fourth Amendment."

The federal judge called the seized evidence fruits from a poisonous tree and the charges that alleged trafficking of 400 grams of fentanyl were ultimately dismissed.