Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
In this Guilford County case, defendant appealed after pleading guilty to trafficking and possession of controlled substances charges and possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing error in denying his motion to suppress a warrantless search of his home. The Court of Appeals majority found no error.
In August of 2020, an anonymous tip came through Crime Stoppers about illegal drugs being sold at defendant’s residence. Officers from the High Point Police Department were sent to check the address and they decided to conduct a “knock and talk” at the residence. Officers went to the residence and parked outside, eventually seeing a silver car pull up to the residence. One officer approached the woman getting out of the silver car, but she did not respond to him. The officer followed the woman to the door, where she knocked and was let inside the residence; the officer smelled the strong odor of marijuana inside when the door was opened. At that point, the officer knocked on the door and identified himself as law enforcement, commanding the door to be opened. After no response, officers kicked the door down and searched the residence, finding marijuana, pills, and a digital scale in plain view. Before trial defendant filed a motion to suppress, and trial court concluded that “the ‘knock and talk’ by [the officer] did not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment search and that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search.” Slip Op. at 4. Defendant pleaded guilty and reserved his right to appeal.
The Court of Appeals first took up defendant’s challenged findings of fact, resolving the minor discrepancies for purposes of the appeal and finding no major errors. Reviewing defendant’s challenged conclusions of law, the court found his contentions without merit, exploring both the knock and talk exception and the exigent circumstances that justified the warrantless search.
The court explained that the knock and talk exception allowed officers to approach a home, but only from where the public is allowed to be, like the front of the house. Here, defendant pointed out that one officer cut through his side yard, and the officers had parked a vehicle on a side street near the residence, and the officer approached his visitor and followed her to the door in a way that “exceeded what a ‘reasonably respectful citizen’ would do.” Id. at 12. The court disagreed with this interpretation, explaining that the officer in question “approached Defendant’s house in a way that was ‘customary, usual, reasonable, respectful, ordinary, typical, [and] nonalarming,’ . . . [and the officer] did not exceed the scope of a knock and talk and transform his presence . . . into a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Id. at 13.
Moving to probable cause and exigent circumstances justifying the search of defendant’s home, the court first established that “the plain smell of marijuana wafting from the front door constituted probable cause.” Id. at 15. The court then noted that officers were responding to two reports of drug sales at the house, and they were aware defendant was bracing the door, suggesting defendant would destroy evidence. These circumstances justified the warrantless entry and search of the residence.
Judge Thompson dissented and would not have found the knock and talk exception applicable to the situation in this case.
Because an officer violated the defendant’s fourth amendment rights by searching the curtilage of his home without a warrant, the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. The officer saw a vehicle with its doors open at the back of a 150-yard driveway leading to the defendant’s home. Concerned that the vehicle might be part of a break-in or home invasion, the officer drove down the driveway, ran the vehicle’s tags, checked—but did not knock—on the front door, checked the windows and doors of the home for signs of forced entry, “cleared” the sides of the house, and then went through a closed gate in a chain-link fence enclosing the home’s backyard and approached the storm door at the back of the house. As the officer approached the door, which was not visible from the street, he smelled marijuana, which led to the defendant’s arrest for drug charges. At the suppression hearing, the State relied on two exceptions to the warrant requirement to justify the officer’s search of the curtilage: the knock and talk doctrine and the community caretaker doctrine. The court found however that neither exception applies. First, the officer did more than nearly knock and talk. Specifically, he ran a license plate not visible from the street, walked around the house examining windows and searching for signs of a break-in, and went first to the front door without knocking and then to a rear door not visible from the street and located behind a closed gate. “These actions went beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held are the permissible actions during a knock and talk.” Likewise, the community caretaker doctrine does not support the officer’s action. “The presence of a vehicle in one’s driveway with its doors open is not the sort of emergency that justifies the community caretaker exception.” The court also noted that because the fourth amendment’s protections “are at their very strongest within one’s home,” the public need justifying the community caretaker exception “must be particularly strong to justify a warrantless search of a home.”