A handful of states have adopted a contrary view and assumed probable cause is required in order to pursue across state lines. See People v. McKay, 10 P.3d 704, 706 (Colo.Ct.App. 2000); State v. Cochran, 372 A.2d 193, 195 (Del. 1977); Gullick v. Sampson, 118 N.H. 826, 395 A.2d 187. 118 N.H. 826, 395 A.2d 187, 187-88 (1978); State v. Foulks, 653 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983).

We therefore look to the law of New Hampshire to determine the validity of the defendant's arrest. In Gullick v. Sampson, 118 N.H. 826 (1978), the same defendant who appeals here contested the validity of his extradition from New Hampshire to Massachusetts. In affirming the defendant's extradition from New Hampshire, the court in dicta stated that the arrest was illegal under New Hampshire's Uniform Law on Interstate Fresh Pursuit, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. c. 614 (Supp.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated, "The judicial inquiry into [a petition for habeas corpus in an extradition proceeding] involves the identity of the person charged, the correctness of the requisition papers, whether the person is a fugitive, whether a crime is substantively charged, and, if the person has not yet been indicted, whether there has been a judicial determination of probable cause." Gullick v. Sampson, 118 N.H. 826, 827, 395 A.2d 187, 188 (1978). This standard is not in conflict with Michigan v. Doran, supra, 439 U.S. at 289.

The State argues that even if the seizure were illegal, the confession is admissible because the official misconduct was not intrusive and was merely technical. The State has the burden of showing that the confessions were admissible. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 (1975); Gullick v. Sampson, 118 N.H. 826, 395 A.2d 187 (1978). The fact that Miranda warnings were given to the defendant does not attenuate the taint of the illegal seizure.