State v. Reel, COA23-711, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 17, 2024)

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.