State v. Morgan
2014 Ohio 1900
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On June 19, 2012 Fairfield County SCRAP officers performed a knock‑and‑talk at Neil Morgan's rural residence after anonymous tips alleged a marijuana grow and meth lab.
- Officers planned a front‑door approach while other officers took perimeter positions; Graf (the resident) answered and closed the door to put her dog away.
- Two officers entered the rear yard/curtilage and observed seven potted marijuana plants on an elevated rear deck visible only from the rear; they then detained Morgan and Graf and sought a search warrant.
- A magistrate issued a warrant; Morgan was indicted, moved to suppress, and the trial court denied suppression. Morgan pleaded no contest and was sentenced; he appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
- The appellate court found officers were not lawfully in the curtilage to view the plants, so plain‑view and exigent‑circumstances justifications failed, the warrant was unsupported once the unlawfully observed marijuana was excluded, and suppressed the fruits of the search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers lawfully entered/viewed the curtilage | Officers argue their perimeter positioning and observation were reasonable for officer safety and investigatory purposes | Morgan argues officers trespassed into curtilage; rear deck not visible from lawful vantage points | Held: Officers were not lawfully in curtilage; observing marijuana there violated the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether knock‑and‑talk justified further intrusion | State: initial knock‑and‑talk was lawful and permitted further steps when exigent facts arose | Morgan: knock‑and‑talk does not permit entry onto curtilage not open to public | Held: Knock‑and‑talk did not authorize entry onto rear yard; officers exceeded permissible scope |
| Whether plain‑view exception applied to plants seen from rear | State: plants were in plain view once officers were near the house | Morgan: plain‑view fails if initial intrusion was unlawful | Held: Plain‑view exception does not apply because the initial presence in curtilage was unlawful |
| Whether exigent circumstances or good‑faith saved warrant/search | State: entry into house was justified to prevent destruction of evidence; warrant later supported search | Morgan: exigency was created by unlawful intrusion; removing unlawfully observed facts defeats probable cause; good‑faith exception inapplicable | Held: Exigent‑circumstances doctrine fails (police created exigency); excluding unlawfully observed plants leaves affidavit insufficient; good‑faith exception does not cure the deficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing and expectation of privacy principles)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (curtilage treated as part of the home)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (exigency doctrine and police‑created exigency limitation)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause review standard for magistrate)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree principle)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (magistrate's probable cause review standard under Ohio law)
- State v. Williams, 55 Ohio St.2d 82 (plain‑view elements for warrantless seizure)
Outcome: Trial court's denial of suppression reversed; conviction vacated as to evidence obtained from the unlawful curtilage intrusion and search; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion.