State v. Lupek, 214 N.C. App. 146

Lupek appeals his convictions for manufacturing marijuana and maintaining a dwelling place for storing or selling controlled substances, challenging denial of suppression.
Deputy Carroll, investigating a dog shooting, observed a bong and fresh marijuana odor while on defendant's front porch, after escorting a nervous woman from the residence.
Deputy Carroll entered the residence, patted down occupants, obtained identifications, and later found a marijuana-growing operation and marijuana in a salad bowl.
A search warrant followed; defendant pled guilty to the charged offenses but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
The trial court held Deputy Carroll was lawfully on the porch during a general inquiry and that the plain view doctrine applied to the bong and marijuana.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the front porch was a permissible vantage point under Prevette and that plain view and subsequent searches were lawful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether porch observation was admissible under plain view	State: deputy had right to porch; plain view satisfied; Prevette controls.	Lupek: porch is curtilage; no right to be there; plain view fails.	Yes; porch lawful, plain view applicable

State v. Prevette, 43 N.C.App. 450 (1979) (front porch inquiry permitted during general investigation)
State v. Graves, 135 N.C.App. 216 (1999) (plain view requires lawful vantage and inadvertence)
State v. Rhodes, 151 N.C.App. 208 (2002) (curtilage extended to yard and outbuildings for privacy)
U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (curtilage protection and probable cause framework)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (curtilage privacy extending to home areas)
State v. Wooding, 117 N.C.App. 109 (1994) (distinguishes porch observation from intrusive peering)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. _ (2011) (arrival at the vantage point matters for the conduct allowed by plain view)