The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the drug trafficking convictions of John Santiago on Aug. 28, rejecting his appeal that challenged the admissibility of wiretap evidence used against him at trial.

Santiago was convicted following a jury trial in Superior Court of possession of a controlled drug with intent to sell and conspiracy to sell a controlled drug. The convictions came after a complex legal battle that spanned several years and included multiple trial delays.

The case originated with Santiago's indictment on Sept. 19, 2019, on the drug trafficking charges. His first jury trial in March 2023 ended in a mistrial due to jury deadlock, necessitating a new trial. The retrial faced multiple scheduling delays, initially set for May 2023, then rescheduled to August, and finally held in September 2023.

At the heart of Santiago's appeal was his challenge to wiretap evidence obtained through a court-authorized telecommunications interception order. On June 22, 2023, Santiago filed a motion to suppress "all evidence obtained pursuant to an order authorizing interception of telecommunications and/or oral communications."

Santiago's legal team argued that the wiretap evidence should be excluded because the interception was not conducted in conformity with the authorization order. Specifically, they contended that the order required intercepted communications to be first heard in the Northern District of Hillsborough County, but raised questions about whether two contracted interpreters involved in the case were actually within Hillsborough County's Northern District during all telecommunications interceptions.

The motion cited RSA 570-A:9, IX(a), which provides grounds for suppression when interceptions are not made in conformity with court orders. This statute is part of New Hampshire's wiretapping laws that govern when and how law enforcement can intercept private communications in criminal investigations.

However, the trial court denied Santiago's suppression motion in a brief margin order, ruling that the motion was untimely. Superior Court Judge Delker wrote that Santiago had been "given an opportunity in the past to file motions to suppress" and that "the new trial date is not an opportunity to litigate matters which could have been litigated earlier in the case."

The trial court's denial was based on procedural grounds rather than the merits of Santiago's wiretap challenge. The court noted that the case had been "scheduled for trial multiple times with repeated dispositional conference orders," suggesting Santiago had previous opportunities to raise suppression issues.

Following the September 2023 jury trial, Santiago was convicted on both the possession with intent to sell charge under RSA 318-B:2, I and the conspiracy charge under RSA 629:3. He subsequently appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the wiretap evidence.

The Supreme Court disposed of the case through a summary order under Supreme Court Rule 20(3), indicating the court determined the appeal could be resolved without a full written opinion. The court stated it had "reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on appeal" and "considered the oral arguments of the parties" before deciding to affirm Santiago's convictions.

The case highlights the intersection of drug enforcement efforts and privacy protections under state wiretapping laws. New Hampshire's controlled drug statutes carry significant penalties, particularly for charges involving intent to sell and conspiracy, which often rely on surveillance evidence including wiretapped communications.

Wiretapping laws require strict compliance with court authorization orders to ensure constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Defense challenges to wiretap evidence often focus on technical compliance with court orders, including requirements about where monitoring must occur and who can conduct the surveillance.

The timing of suppression motions is critical in criminal cases. Courts generally require defendants to raise evidentiary challenges well in advance of trial to allow for proper litigation and avoid delays. Santiago's case demonstrates how procedural rules can prevent courts from reaching the merits of potentially significant constitutional questions.

The affirmance means Santiago's convictions stand, though the Supreme Court's brief order does not provide detailed analysis of either the suppression issue or the underlying evidence. The case reflects ongoing challenges in balancing effective drug enforcement with procedural protections for defendants.

For practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of timely filing suppression motions and the strict procedural requirements courts impose to manage complex criminal cases involving multiple trial dates and extensive pretrial motion practice.