Hilliard appeals conviction to state Supreme Court

NORTHFIELD — Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hilliard has appealed his conviction of aggravated driving while intoxicated, hoping the state Supreme Court will overturn the lower-court ruling.

Attorney Jared Bedrick confirmed on Tuesday that he filed the appeal with the Supreme Court on Hilliard’s behalf, but offered no further comment.

Judge James H. Leary, in finding Hilliard guilty in Nashua Circuit Court on Jan. 14, gave Hilliard 30 days to appeal the case before the sentence would be imposed. He had issued a $930 fine and sentenced Hilliard to 17 days in the Belknap County House of Corrections, with 12 days suspended — a common practice with first-time offenders. He also suspended Hilliard’s driver’s license for 12 months.

The case was heard in Nashua, rather than in Merrimack or Belknap County, because of Hilliard’s interactions with local courts and police departments. Hilliard, 58, of Northfield, is a former Northfield police chief and his career has been in local law enforcement.

Despite a call for his resignation from Gov. Chris Sununu, Hilliard has vowed to fill out his term as an elected official.

The arrest

Tilton police arrested Hilliard on Aug. 9 after receiving a report of an automobile operating in an erratic fashion on its way to the 99 Restaurant, almost hitting a minivan. When police arrived, Hilliard was emerging from the restaurant with a take-out order.

Four witnesses, including three Tilton police officers, testified during the trial. The officers said Hilliard demonstrated clear of intoxication, including having slurred speech, an unsteady gait, and glossy, bloodshot eyes — all captured on video by police body cams and played during the trial.

Sgt. Brian Kydd-Keeler told the court that Hilliard admitted to having had four Tito-and-soda cocktails about four hours earlier. Police also found a “cocktail” in the console of Hilliard’s car.

After issuing a field sobriety test which police said Hilliard failed, they obtained his consent to have a blood test which revealed a blood alcohol level of 0.246, three times the legal limit.

Bedrick successfully argued in court that the arrest was illegal because police had no justifiable grounds for charging Hilliard. The sheriff was not behind the wheel of his car when police arrived, and his wife, who had been notified, was on her way and would have been able to drive him home. Bedrick said that, while the law gives police the right to take a suspected drunk driver into custody in order to get a blood sample before the blood alcohol level begins to drop, other circumstances need to exist in order to justify such a step.

Judge Leary initially agreed that the arrest was unlawful and that the resulting evidence was inadmissible.

Prosecutor Jesse Renauld-Smith appealed the decision to exclude the blood test, arguing that, even if the arrest was illegal, Hilliard had willingly given his consent to have blood drawn. He produced the signed form that gave police permission for the blood test.

Bedrick argued that there was no choice offered because the form noted that refusal to give consent would result in the forfeiture of his license. “Consent is not real consent,” he told the court.

Bedrick also argued on the “temporal proximity” of the unlawful arrest and the blood test, saying that Hilliard was still in illegal custody when the blood was drawn and, therefore, the evidence was inadmissible.

Leary ultimately ruled that, based on all the evidence, the test results could be admitted. Saying he had seen the video and there was “no question” that Hilliard was highly intoxicated, Leary also said it was clear that Hilliard had willingly agreed to the blood test.