State v. Alexander, 233 N.C. App. 50

The State charged Alexander after a theft of copper coil from Century Furniture; a metal recycler confirmed coils matching the description and weight were sold by Alexander.
Officer Roberts located Alexander’s residence in Hollar Mobile Home Park using the recycler’s information, observing an Infiniti SUV and a tow trailer near Alexander’s mobile home.
Roberts approached the yard, knocked on the door, and saw an open trailer containing copper coil scraps in plain view from the front porch area.
Deputies obtained a landlord key to enter the mobile home due to a welfare concern after a child was observed peeking from behind a door; Alexander and the child were found hiding inside.
Evidence seized included the coils from the trailer, marijuana, and a backpack with tools; Alexander was arrested for larceny and breaking and entering; the trial court suppressed the inside-the-mobile-home evidence but allowed the coils outside the home to be admitted.
The trial court ruled the coils were seized under the plain view doctrine but did not address whether the officers had lawful access to the trailer; the Court of Appeals reversed the plain-view ruling and remanded for findings on access to the trailer under Nance and related cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plain view justified the seizure of coils	State argues coils were in plain view and immediately apparent as stolen	Alexander contends plain view does not justify a search; access issue unresolved	Partially reversed; coils seizure affirmed on plain view, but access issue remanded
Whether officers had lawful access to the trailer	State contends access was lawful due to location/public space	Alexander argues no lawful access on private property without consent or warrant or exigent circumstances	Remanded for further factual findings on lawful access to the trailer

State v. Bembery, 33 N.C. App. 31, 234 S.E.2d 33 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977) (immediately apparent stolen goods when description matched)
State v. Haymond, 203 N.C. App. 151, 691 S.E.2d 108 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (immediately apparent items when matching stolen goods)
State v. Weakley, 176 N.C. App. 642, 627 S.E.2d 315 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) (immediately apparent contraband in plain view)
State v. Sapatch, 108 N.C. App. 321, 423 S.E.2d 510 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992) (criminal nature not apparent until manipulation in some cases)
State v. Carter, 200 N.C. App. 47, 682 S.E.2d 416 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (criminal nature not apparent where contraband not in plain view)
United States v. Jackson, 131 F.3d 1105 (4th Cir. 1997) (plain-view search vs. mere observation distinctions)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 134 n.5 (1990) (distinguishes plain view seizure from initial observation)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738 n.4 (1983) (plain-view seizure requires immediate sense of crime)
State v. Nance, 149 N.C. App. 734, 562 S.E.2d 557 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (establishes elements of plain-view seizure, including access)