State v. Falls

• Decision Date: 15 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. COA20-40,COA20-40
• Citation: 853 S.E.2d 227
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Shane FALLS, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

853 S.E.2d 227

STATE of North Carolina

v.Michael Shane FALLS, Defendant.

No. COA20-40

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 15, 2020

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General J. Aldean Webster, III, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Amanda S. Hitchcock, for Defendant.

BROOK, Judge.

This case presents the following question: are three law enforcement officers wearing dark clothing impliedly licensed to cut across a person's front yard, swiftly passing a no trespassing sign, and emerge from trees they were using for cover and concealment in order to illuminate, surround, and stop that person's departing car at 9:30 p.m. on a dark, cold mid-December evening? Or does this conduct instead implicate the Fourth Amendment? Common sense tells us no Girl Scouts would attempt such audacious efforts in peddling their cookies. Accordingly, we must suppress the fruits of the officers’ unconstitutional search in this case.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

At the suppression hearing, Gastonia Police Officer Clarence Belton testified that he received an anonymous drug complaint that Michael Shane Falls ("Defendant") was selling and growing marijuana out of his home. Officer Belton also received information that Defendant carried a silver revolver and determined that Defendant was a convicted felon.

The next day, 16 December 2017, law enforcement decided to conduct a knock and talk to "further investigate the complaint based on the details" they had received. Around 9:30 p.m. on that "extremely cold" night, Officer Belton, along with Officers J.C. Padgett and S.D. Hoyle, went to Defendant's house to conduct their investigation despite the fact that "[they] usually do the knock and talks ... during the daylight hours."

The officers parked in a church parking lot next to Defendant's house. They then walked where "the road meets the [Defendant's] property line[,]" or what they later termed walking on the property's right-of-way. Officer Belton then saw "a white male get inside of a vehicle" and told Officers Padgett and Hoyle that he was "possibly our suspect."

Wanting to make contact with him before he left, the officers made a beeline for Defendant's car. In so doing, they cut into Defendant's front yard and "between the tree[s] to go straight to the vehicle. [ ] [I]t g[a]ve [them] cover and concealment as well, just in case there was an issue." The officers "walked swiftly over to th[e] vehicle," passing a no trespassing sign that none of them appreciated in the moment. The car was running and starting to reverse out of the driveway, and, as the officers approached, they turned on their flashlights and shined them at Defendant's vehicle. Officers Belton and Padgett went to the driver side window while Officer Hoyle went around to the passenger side. Officer Belton immediately noticed a silver revolver lying in the passenger seat and within a few seconds also smelled "a pungent odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle" on the driver side.

Officer Belton asked Defendant if he lived at the house and what his name was before telling him they had received a drug complaint. He then asked Defendant to step out of the vehicle and conducted a Terry frisk of Defendant for weapons. According to Officer Belton, Defendant was "very belligerent ... [and] didn't like the fact that we were there" and called someone on his cell phone; at that point, Officer Belton put Defendant in handcuffs because he was not listening to commands. Officer Padgett then recovered the gun from the vehicle and saw several vials in the driver door, which he identified based on their odor and color as THC oil.

Afterwards, Officers Belton and Padgett went to the front door of the residence and knocked several times. Within a few minutes, Defendant's fiancée, Summer Bolt, came outside to speak with the officers. When she opened the door, Officer Belton testified that he could smell the odor of marijuana coming out of the residence. Ms. Bolt did not consent to a search of the residence, so Officer Padgett applied for and received a search warrant. Once Officer Padgett returned with the warrant, he read it to Defendant and Ms. Bolt, and then the officers executed the warrant. Marijuana, paraphernalia, a pill that field-tested positive for methamphetamine, and counterfeit $100 bills were found in the home.

Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine, possession of counterfeit instruments, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant moved to suppress, and, during that hearing, Officer Padgett testified as follows regarding how people might access Defendant's front door:

The sidewalk would be what anybody that was going door-to-door selling anything would take, they would go down -- up the little sidewalk that jets off the driveway[.]

...

There was not a worn path in the grass [where we walked], or anything like that. I would think anybody, especially if you parked your vehicle on the roadway, you would go down the driveway. We did -- just because of the freedom of movement, and stuff, we're not going [to] block the driveway. We don't like parking our patrol cars on the road. So that's why we took the path we did. If you were in a mail truck you would probably stop at the driveway and go down the sidewalk to the door. But that's not the path that we took.

Officer Belton further testified that "due to the fact [of] it being dark, there's no lights right there, and us wearing dark clothing, we didn't want to be struck by a vehicle just doing a simple knock and talk."

Judge Kuehnert denied the motion to suppress by written order on 6 November 2019. The trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact:

7. ... [O]fficers decided to conduct a "knock and talk" at 2300 Davis Park Road to further investigate the information provided by the anonymous tipster.

8. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on December 16, Officers Belton, Padgett, Hoyle and Lewis arrived at 2300 Davis Park Road and parked in the adjacent church parking lot.

9. The officers walked along the highway right-of-way by the house on the grass portion of the highway as they walked up to the driveway.

10. The house could be approached by walking up the driveway, which was obvious, or through the yard, which was not obvious.

11. At the end of the driveway was a sidewalk that ran parallel to the house and up to the front door.

12. There was a "no trespassing" sign posted on a tree in front of the property.¹

13. As [ ] [O]fficers Padgett and Belton approached the driveway along the grass right-of-way they noticed a white male in a Honda Civic start to back up[ ] (this was indicated because the backup lights came on the vehicle).

14. The officers passed the front door of the house but did not go directly to the front door because there was no obvious path.

15. All of the officers involved then walked over towards the vehicle cutting through the yard approximately 10-20 feet.

16. Officer Belton arrived at the vehicle on the driver side and Officer Padgett was right behind. Officer Hoyle went to the passenger side of the vehicle.

17. As [Officer] Belton arrived he noticed the window was rolled down and began speaking to the individual.

18. The individual identified himself as Michael Shane Falls.

19. Almost immediately, Officers Belton and Padgett noticed an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle.

20. At the same time, Officer Hoyle, on the passenger side of the vehicle noticed a silver handgun in plain view on the passenger side of the vehicle.

...

24. [Defendant] advised that his fiancé[e], Summer Bolt, was in the residence.

25. [ ] [O]fficer Padgett walked up the driveway to the sidewalk that was perpendicular to the house and walked up to the front door.

...

27. According to testimony from [O]fficers Padgett and Belton, approximately 2-3 minutes later, Ms. Bolt came to the door. Upon the door opening, Officer[s] Padgett and Belton noticed an odor of marijuana.

The trial court then made the following pertinent conclusions of law:

39. A knock and talk is valid so long as it is reasonable and does not violate the normal customs of an invitation and is not physically intrusive. ( Jardines , at 1416 ).

...

41. In the present case, Officer's [sic] Padgett, Belton and Hoyle testified that [ ] they approached the driveway of 2300 Davis Park Road along the right of way open to the public along the side of the road.

42. Officer Belton also testified that himself, Padgett and Hoyle passed the front of the front door by the house. However, there was to [sic] sidewalk or direct path to the door, so the officers continued to the driveway adjacent to the front door.

43. In walking along the right-of-way, the officers followed a path that a person visiting 2300 Davis Park Road would follow if that individual was going to knock on the front door of the house.

44. That [ ] when Officer Padgett saw a white male getting into a car and the br[ake] lights turn on, they immediately cut across the normal path into the curtilage of the yard at 2300 Davis Park Road. Officer Belton testified that he believed that [the] individual was the owner of the house and wanted to talk to him about the drug complaint.

...

46. Even though the police officers briefly entered the curtilage of the property[,] it was for talking to the potential homeowner leaving in their car.

47. That the intrusion on the curtilage of the property was brief and minimal. Further, the officers did not use any special equipment or use any special force to enter the property. As a result, it was not an unreasonable intrusion and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On 20 May 2019, Defendant pleaded guilty to all charges, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. Judge Kuehnert consolidated the charges and sentenced Defendant to 17 to 30 months’ imprisonment, suspended upon 60 months’ supervised probation and a 90-day split...