Search and seizure; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11; People v. Champion; The "plain view" exception; People v. Galloway; The "plain smell" doctrine; People v. Kazmierczak; The "knock and talk" procedure; People v. Frohriep; Whether the circumstances made it reasonable for the officers to enter the "curtilage" of the home; People v. Powell; United States v. Dunn; People v. Houze; Hardesty v. Hamburg Twp.

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying the defendants' motion to suppress evidence because the officers did not unlawfully expand the scope of the knock and talk procedure. Two officers went to defendants' property to speak with them after receiving a second anonymous tip about an alleged marijuana grow operation at the property. When they arrived they parked in the driveway, walked toward the home, bypassed the door nearest the front of the home, and knocked on a "middle" door just to the east of the first door. When nobody answered they proceeded to the rear of the home where they observed a black plastic sheet covering a window, and a vent fan. They also smelled marijuana. The officers left and obtained a search warrant, then returned and found approximately 45 marijuana plants and marijuana grow equipment. Defendants entered conditional guilty pleas to manufacturing between 20 and 200 marijuana plants after the trial court denied their joint motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, the court rejected their argument that the officers impermissibly expanded the scope of a knock and talk procedure when they entered the backyard of the property, concluding that the trial court's factual findings were supported by the evidence. "The officers entered upon defendants' property in December 2011 for the legitimate purpose of conducting a knock and talk; that is, to speak with defendants about the tip they received. The officers' decision to move to the rear of the home, after receiving no response at the first direct entrance to the home, was reasonable in light of the various observable signs that the residents were present either in or around the home." The court rejected their contention that the backyard constituted part of the "curtilage of the home, such that the officers' entry" was impermissible. "While not untenable, such a claim lacks merit given the fact that there was an observable path leading from the main entry to the rear sliding glass door and the fact that defendants took no steps to protect the area from the public, such as putting up a fence or 'no trespassing' signs." Because the officers were lawfully present in the backyard as part of an effort to make contact with defendants, "the evidence they discovered - including the plastic sheeting, vent fan, and smell of marijuana - could lawfully be used in support of a search warrant." Finally, the court rejected their argument that the officers' initial visit to the home a few months earlier impermissibly tainted the subsequent visit, holding that "the officers' lawful observations in December 2011 were independently sufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant." Affirmed.