State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753

Background

On May 5, 2011 two trained narcotics detectives performed a knock‑and‑talk at Jerry Grice Jr.’s rural residence after an anonymous tip; they parked in the driveway and approached a side door that served as the main entrance.
From roughly 15 yards in the driveway the officers observed three potted marijuana plants in the yard; both officers immediately identified them as marijuana based on training.
The officers walked to the plants, called their captain, were told to seize the plants, removed the three plants (leaving buckets and tools), and returned the next day with a warrant to search the house; defendant later admitted the plants were his.
Defendant was indicted for manufacturing a controlled substance; he moved to suppress the seized plants (motion denied), was convicted, appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court suppression ruling.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the warrantless seizure was reasonable under the plain‑view doctrine and exigent‑circumstances principles; it also rejected plain‑error relief.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Grice's Argument	Held
Whether seizure of plants in curtilage from driveway violated Fourth Amendment	Officers were lawfully on driveway doing knock‑and‑talk, plants were in plain view, discovery was inadvertent, and officers had lawful access to seize	Curtilage enjoys heightened protection; officers lacked right to enter that portion of curtilage to seize without warrant	Seizure lawful: plain‑view elements satisfied and crossing within curtilage to seize was justified given initial lawful presence
Whether exigent circumstances justified immediate seizure without warrant	Objective facts (vehicle present, dogs, portability/destructibility of plants, risk someone at home) made seizure reasonable	No specific exigency shown at trial; State failed to prove exigent circumstances	Exigency objectively supported; seizure to prevent destruction was reasonable
Whether failure to object at trial permits reversal under plain‑error review	Admission of plants did not constitute plain error because evidence was reliable and defendant admitted ownership	Erroneous admission of unlawfully seized evidence undermines fairness and warrants plain error	Plain error not shown; admission did not seriously affect fairness or reliability of proceedings
Scope of lawful access within curtilage after lawful approach	Implicit social license to approach home extends within curtilage such that officers may retrieve contraband in plain view without exceeding lawful access	Lawful presence at door does not permit entering other curtilage areas absent warrant or exigency	Lawful presence on one part of curtilage justified moving to retrieve plainly visible contraband in another nearby portion given limits on intrusion

Key Cases Cited

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (defines plain‑view elements for seizure)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (privacy expectation test for searches)
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (front‑door license and curtilage discussion)
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (plain‑view from lawful vantage point outside home)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (no search when no privacy interest in object plainly observed)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (open fields vs. curtilage distinction)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (factors for determining curtilage)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (plain‑view as supplement to prior justification)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (balancing privacy and law‑enforcement interests; limited seizures)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (limits of plain‑view doctrine)
State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 (N.C. precedent allowing seizure based on plain view from doorway)