State v. Smith, 246 N.C. App. 170

Background

On July 30, 2013, motorists (the Wilsons) stopped by a roadside sign advertising pony rides at 2516 Hendersonville Road (Double “S” Ranch). They observed a man firing a rifle; later a .22 bullet was found embedded in their truck tire.
The Wilsons reported the incident; Buncombe County detectives interviewed them and the tire-shop manager, then drove to the ranch the next day to investigate.
Detectives entered through an open driveway gate, wearing marked bulletproof vests and accompanied by a uniformed deputy in a marked car; Defendant came out, spoke with them, and invited them to see pens behind the house.
Mrs. Smith told officers there was a .22 rifle in the house; Defendant gave verbal consent to search; detectives found and seized a .22 rifle and later obtained warrants (after discovering Defendant’s felony history) leading to a SWAT search that recovered additional firearms.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence from the detectives’ initial, warrantless visit, arguing the officers lacked an implied license to approach because of a “No Trespassing” sign and that they exceeded a lawful knock-and-talk; the trial court denied suppression and Defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers entry onto driveway and approach to the house violated Fourth Amendment	Officers were conducting a lawful knock-and-talk on an area visitors are implicitly permitted to use	The “No Trespassing” sign and gate revoked the implied license, making entry a search	Held: No Fourth Amendment violation; implied license remained and knock-and-talk was lawful
Whether officer conduct exceeded the scope of a knock-and-talk	Officers identified themselves, stayed in driveway, questioned about the shooting; consent to search obtained voluntarily	Presence of vests, deputy, and further movement onto property made the encounter investigatory and coercive	Held: Officers’ purpose was limited to inquiry; movement was invited by Defendant and questions were germane
Whether the driveway was within curtilage such that officers’ presence was a search	Even if driveway is curtilage, the front-path/driveway approach is implicitly licensed for knocks and inquiries	If driveway is curtilage, entry without warrant violated privacy protections	Held: Driveway served as access route; approach was within scope of implied invitation and did not violate Fourth Amendment
Whether evidence from the consensual search and subsequent warrant should be suppressed	Consent was given and later warrants were valid; evidence admissible	Initial entry tainted the consent and warrants, so evidence must be suppressed	Held: Consent was voluntary and officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment; suppression denied

Key Cases Cited

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (reaffirms trespassory test and that Jones supplements Katz)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (curtilage intrusion and limits of implied license to approach a home)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (privacy expectations and technology-based searches)
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (home as core of Fourth Amendment protection)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (definition and protection of curtilage)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (factors for determining curtilage)
State v. Tripp, 52 N.C. App. 244 (officers may approach residence to inquire)
State v. Church, 110 N.C. App. 569 (officers’ presence for general inquiry is lawful)
State v. Pasour, 223 N.C. App. 175 (No Trespassing sign is relevant but not dispositive to implied license)
State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753 (Jardines’ principles and requirement of a clear demonstration to revoke implied license)
State v. Lupek, 214 N.C. App. 146 (high expectation of privacy in curtilage)