358 Ga. App. 482
Ga. Ct. App.2021Background
- On March 23, 2016 Officer David Gratton observed Timothy Lewis on his side porch handling money and making motions consistent with weighing/portioning drugs; Gratton called for backup.
- When backup arrived Lewis shoved what he had been handling under the stairwell and told officers not to enter his property; Lewis then approached officers and asked for a supervisor.
- Gratton had walked onto the adjacent property (which he testified was abandoned and which he regularly checked) and from that vantage observed a scale with marijuana residue and white powder residue on Lewis’s side steps.
- With the supervisor’s approval officers entered Lewis’s yard, seized the scales and multiple bags pushed under the house, and then arrested Lewis; he was convicted of marijuana-possession with intent, controlled-substance-possession with intent, and possession of tools for a crime.
- Lewis moved to suppress the seized evidence; the trial court denied the motion. On appeal the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred because exigent circumstances did not justify a warrantless entry into the home’s curtilage to seize the items, and reversed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Lewis's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers lawfully observed contraband from neighboring property (abandoned) | Officers lacked permission; neighboring lot was not abandoned so plain-view seizure invalid | Neighboring property was "apparently abandoned"; officers lawfully on that property and could view contraband | Trial court credited testimony that lot was abandoned; issue not preserved for appeal in that form, and court accepted finding of abandonment |
| Whether officers could enter Lewis’s curtilage and seize items without a warrant (exigent circumstances) | No exigency; officers simply retrieved items because they were in plain view; no evidence items were in imminent danger of destruction | Seizure justified by exigent circumstances and plain-view observation | Court held no evidence of exigency; officers seized items solely because they were in plain view; warrantless entry into curtilage unlawful; suppression should have been granted |
| Application of plain-view doctrine to contraband observed from adjacent lot | Plain-view cannot justify entering curtilage without warrant or exigency | Plain-view observation from lawful vantage supported seizure | Court reiterated plain-view requires lawful access to object itself; lawful vantage alone did not justify entering curtilage absent exigency |
| Remaining claims (insufficiency, sentencing) | Lewis challenged sufficiency of controlled-substance possession and sentencing errors | State urged convictions should stand | Not reached—convictions reversed on suppression grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v. State, 229 Ga. App. 766 (plain-view seizure valid only from place officer is lawfully entitled to be)
- Carranza v. State, 266 Ga. 263 (warrantless intrusion into home/curtilage requires consent or exigent circumstances)
- James v. State, 294 Ga. App. 656 (exigent-circumstances test focuses on objectively reasonable fear of imminent evidence destruction)
- Reaves v. State, 284 Ga. 181 (when officers lawfully enter a scene they may seize plainly visible evidence justified by exigency)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (Fourth Amendment protection extends to curtilage; expectation of privacy analysis)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (front porch/curtilage treated as part of home for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- Crocker v. Beatty, 886 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir.) (exigent-circumstances exception requires reasonable belief evidence might be destroyed before warrant could be secured)