State v. Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: December 17, 2024
• Docket: 24-336
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA24-336

Filed 17 December 2024

Carteret County, Nos. 21CRS052640-41

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

JEFFREY LEE JOHNSON

Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 12 October 2023 by Judge

Phyllis M. Gorham in Carteret County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

9 October 2024.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Brenda Menard, for the State-Appellee.

W. Michael Spivey for Defendant-Appellant.

COLLINS, Judge.

Defendant Jeffrey Lee Johnson appeals from judgments entered upon guilty

verdicts of one count of felony cruelty to animals and two counts of misdemeanor

cruelty to animals. Defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by concluding

that a warrantless search of his home’s curtilage was reasonable due to exigent

circumstances and by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result

of that search and the search of his home. We find no error, much less plain error. STATE V. JOHNSON

Opinion of the Court

I. Background

Defendant was indicted for two counts of felony animal cruelty and three

counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence

seized during the search of his property. The evidence presented at the suppression

hearing tended to show the following:

Carteret County Animal Control Officer Tyler Harvill received a phone call

reporting a strong smell coming from Defendant’s property and concern that there

might be a deceased dog on the property. Harvill discovered that Defendant was on

probation as a result of being found guilty of cruelty to animals. As conditions of

Defendant’s probation, he was required to allow reasonable searches of his home and

yard concerning animals on his property and was prohibited from abusing animals

by withholding food or water.

Harvill immediately attempted to reach Defendant by phone but received no

response; he left a voicemail. Harvill contacted Carteret County Deputy Sheriff

Jessica Newman and requested her assistance with checking on several dogs at

Defendant’s property. He told Newman of Defendant’s conviction for animal cruelty

and his probation conditions.

Harvill and Newman drove to Defendant’s home. Harvill parked his car just

past Defendant’s driveway. “[E]ven from next to the road” he could smell ammonia

and feces coming from Defendant’s property. Newman drove separately to

Defendant’s property. She testified, “As soon as I got out of my patrol car, I could

-2- STATE V. JOHNSON

smell a very, very strong odor of ammonia and feces and what I associate with, my

experience being, just the smell of rot.” The property had overgrown brush and “a lot

of trash and building construction materials piled up.” Newman could see animals

throughout the front of the property and was concerned about them being dirty.

Because Harvill and Newman had been unable to reach Defendant and were

concerned about a potentially dead animal on the property, the officers walked up the

driveway toward Defendant’s home to attempt to make contact with Defendant.

When they reached the end of the driveway, they encountered Chubby, a Pitbull

attached to a heavy chain that was driven into the ground.

Chubby’s neck was “very irritated”; he had “a lot of missing fur”; his teeth “were

worn down to the gumline”; he had overgrown toenails, one of which was “enlarged,

red, and appeared to be infected”; and “[h]e had scabs on his body [in] various stages

of healing.” Chubby did not have any food or water nearby.

The officers could see other dogs on the property. “[T]hey all had similar . . .

hair loss and overgrown nails, and their teeth were worn down severely. They all

pretty much had the same setup.” The officers could also hear dogs barking from

various points on the property. Newman walked toward the sound of barking

puppies. She found puppies in a box filled with fresh and dried feces. The water

buckets inside the box were too tall for the puppies to reach over.

One of the officers knocked on Defendant’s front door but got no response. They

could hear a dog barking inside. Newman stood on a pile of trash and a freezer next

-3- STATE V. JOHNSON

to the door to look inside Defendant’s window for the dog. As she did this, “the smell

of ammonia and feces increased significantly to the point [she] felt physically sick.”

“[T]he residence was very dirty. The floor was coated in dirt. There were piles of

feces. It was just very dirty, and there was a lot of trash.” The barking dog was

positioned to the side of the window.

The officers headed into the backyard to check on the other dogs, because they

were concerned for the dogs’ safety. The dogs in the backyard “did not appear to be

in good condition.” One of the dogs had a large tumor above its tail. Several dogs

had “their teeth worn down to the gumline, some of them, including their canine

teeth; missing fur on the majority of the dogs; scabs on the majority of the dogs;

overgrown toenails on the majority of the dogs.” Some of the dogs had water, others

did not, and others had dirty water. Some of the water bowls were placed on top of

the dogs’ shelters and the dogs were not in good enough condition to get on top of the

shelters to reach the bowls.

As she was looking around, Newman noticed a chain leading into a dog shelter

created out of a barrel. She walked over to it and saw a dog inside. She initially

thought the dog was deceased. She called out to it, but there was no reaction.

Newman testified:

I got closer to the dog. Her name is Emmie. I bent down and I watched. I could see her breathing very shallow. Continued trying to get her attention. She didn’t react. I ended up putting my hand on the chain and kind of rustling the chain, and she slowly started to react.

-4- STATE V. JOHNSON

....

She picked her head up, looked at me. She began to try to get up to step out of the crate, the barrel. She was very uneasy on her feet. She actually stumbled and fell a couple of times as she was walking out.

She looked terrible. Again, her teeth were very worn down to the gums. Her ears had both been -- they’re very short-cropped ears. The ears were both bleeding. Both ears had open wounds that were bleeding. She had the most missing fur. You could see her skin and several patches throughout her entire body. She had a large mass on her left thigh that was oozing blood and -- and fluid, and her toenails were so overgrown that it actually changed -- it contorted her toes. Her paw didn’t just sit flat on the ground.

Newman called the magistrate and sent over some photographs of the dogs.

The magistrate found probable cause to charge Defendant with animal cruelty and

probable cause to take the dogs at that time for their safety. Newman also spoke with

Animal Control and explained her intention to get the animals to the Humane Society

for safekeeping and veterinary care.

At that point, Defendant arrived home. He was “not receptive to having a

conversation,” and Newman placed him under arrest. After taking Defendant to the

Carteret County Detention Center, Newman applied for, and received, a warrant to

search Defendant’s home. Inside the home, Newman found two dogs, Weezy and

Peezy, both of whom were in horrible physical condition. No food or water was

available to the dogs.

-5- STATE V. JOHNSON

Ultimately, twenty-one dogs were seized from Defendant’s property. The vast

majority of the dogs needed immediate veterinary assistance. Emmie was

immediately euthanized based on veterinary recommendation. Weezy was also

euthanized after the removal of her bladder stones did not sufficiently treat her poor

health.

The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, finding facts consistent

with those recited above and concluding that the search was not unreasonable based

on exigent circumstances. The case proceeded to trial. The jury found Defendant

guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced to 8-to-19 months of imprisonment for

the felony cruelty to animals conviction and to two 120-day sentences for the two

misdemeanor cruelty to animals convictions, all to run consecutively. The trial court

suspended the sentences with an active sentence of 90 days, and Defendant was

placed on special supervised probation for 48 months. Defendant appealed in open

court.

II. Discussion

Defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred by denying his motion to

suppress evidence seized as a result of the warrantless search of the curtilage of his

home and of his home. Defendant’s arguments are wholly meritless.

A. Standard of Review

When a defendant fails to preserve an issue relating to a motion to suppress

but “specifically and distinctly” contends plain error, this Court reviews the issue for

-6- STATE V. JOHNSON

plain error. State v. Powell, 253 N.C. App. 590, 594 (2017); N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(4).

“For error to constitute plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that a

fundamental error occurred at trial.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012).

“To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice-that,

after examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury’s

finding that the defendant was guilty.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).

“In reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, this Court examines whether the

trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether those

findings support the conclusions of law.” State v. Alvarez, 385 N.C. 431, 433 (2023)

(citation omitted). “Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Id.

B. Applicable Search and Seizure Law

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals “against unreasonable searches

and seizures” by the government. U.S. Const. amend. IV. No unreasonable search

occurs when “an officer is in a place where the public is allowed to be, such as at the

front door of a house. It is well-established that entrance by law enforcement officers

onto private property for the purpose of a general inquiry or interview is proper.”

State v. Lupek, 214 N.C. App. 146, 151 (2011) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation

omitted). “When law enforcement observes contraband in plain view, no reasonable

expectation of privacy exists, and thus, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against

unreasonable warrantless searches is not violated.” State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753, 756

(2015) (citation omitted). Moreover, an officer may seize evidence under the plain

-7- STATE V. JOHNSON

view doctrine when “the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at

the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed; . . . the evidence’s

incriminating character . . . was immediately apparent; . . . the officer had a lawful

right of access to the object itself; . . . [and] the discovery of evidence in plain view

[was] inadvertent.” Id. at 756-57 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

When an officer is not in a place where the public is allowed to be, “[t]he

governing premise of the Fourth Amendment is that a governmental search and

seizure of private property unaccompanied by prior judicial approval in the form of a

warrant is per se unreasonable unless the search falls within a well-delineated

exception to the warrant requirement involving exigent circumstances.” State v.

Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 135 (1982) (citations omitted). “Exigent circumstances exist

when there is a situation that demands unusual or immediate action and that may

allow people to circumvent usual procedures.” State v. Nance, 149 N.C. App. 734, 743

(2002) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). “If the circumstances of a

particular case render impracticable a delay to obtain a warrant, a warrantless

search on probable cause is permissible . . . .” State v. Allison, 298 N.C. 135, 141

(1979) (citations omitted). Exigent circumstances exist where an officer reasonably

believes that an animal on the property needs immediate aid. Cf. Nance, 149 N.C.

App. at 743-44 (analyzing whether exigent circumstances existed for animal control

officers to enter defendant’s property and seize horses located thereon and ultimately

concluding they did not because the “animal control officers had ample time during

-8- STATE V. JOHNSON

the three days after [first] viewing the horses in which to secure a warrant, but

neglected to do so because they mistakenly believed it to be unnecessary”). See

Morgan v. State, 645 S.E.2d 745, 749 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the Fourth

Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry and search

when they reasonably believe an animal on the property needs immediate aid).

1. Search of Defendant’s Curtilage

Here, Harvill received a phone call reporting a strong smell and the potential

for a dead animal on Defendant’s property. He discovered that Defendant had been

convicted of cruelty to animals and was on probation. Harvill called Defendant but

Defendant did not answer. Harvill called Newman, and upon their arrival at

Defendant’s property, they immediately smelled ammonia and feces; Newman

smelled rot. The property was overgrown with brush, and a lot of trash and building

construction materials were piled up. They could see animals “throughout the front

of the property.”

The officers walked up Defendant’s driveway toward his home. At the end of

the driveway, they encountered Chubby, who was chained up and in poor physical

condition with no food or water. They could see other dogs on the property in similar

condition with “pretty much . . . the same setup.” They could hear puppies barking

in a nearby box, dogs barking from various points on the property, and a dog barking

inside the home. When the officers knocked on the door, they got no response. Next

to the door, “the smell of ammonia and feces increased significantly to the point

-9- STATE V. JOHNSON

[Newman] felt physically sick.”

At this point, no unreasonable search had occurred as Newman was “in a place

where the public is allowed to be” when she walked up Defendant’s driveway and onto

the porch. Lupek, 214 N.C. App. at 151. Furthermore, the seizure of Chubby and the

other dogs visible on the property was justified under the plain view doctrine:

Newman did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving where Chubby was

chained to the ground and the other dogs were visible; it was immediately apparent

from Chubby’s and the other dogs’ conditions that Chubby and the other dogs were

evidence of animal cruelty; Newman had a lawful right of access to Chubby and the

other dogs; and the discovery of Chubby and the other dogs in plain view was

inadvertent. See Grice, 367 N.C. at 756-57. Additionally, the circumstances

abundantly supported a reasonable belief that the dogs on the property needed

immediate aid to prevent further serious injury or death such that exigent

circumstances justified Newman’s warrantless entry into the areas of Defendant’s

property where the dogs were located.

Likewise, once Newman observed the seriously deprived condition of the dogs,

she was entitled to respond to the dire emergency situation by having the dogs

immediately seized so that they could be transported for emergency medical

treatment. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the prevention of the continued

needless suffering and death of the dogs on Defendant’s property created exigent

circumstances justifying the warrantless search and seizure of the dogs. See, e.g.,

- 10 - STATE V. JOHNSON

Morgan v. State, 656 S.E.2d 857, 860 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (affirming exigent

circumstances existed where malnourished and mistreated animals were observed on

the property, a neighbor had reported mistreated animals on the property, and harsh

weather conditions existed, giving the deputy “a reasonable belief that the dogs heard

barking in the backyard were in need of immediate aid to prevent their serious injury

or death”).

We further note that, given the plain view discoveries of Chubby and the other

dogs on the front of the property, there was a substantial basis for probable cause to

search the backyard and inside the house. Indeed, Newman applied for and received

a search warrant to search the residence, storage units, barns, sheds, outbuildings,

and person(s) at Defendant’s property. Thus, even if exigent circumstances had not

justified the search of the backyard and seizure of the dogs therein, the dogs would

have been seized inevitably upon Newman securing and executing the search warrant

for the premises; the inevitable discovery rule therefore applies. See State v. Wells,

225 N.C. App. 487, 490 (2013) (“Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence

which is illegally obtained can still be admitted into evidence as an exception to the

exclusionary rule when the [evidence] ultimately or inevitably would have been

discovered by lawful means.” (quotation marks and citations omitted)).

For these reasons, the trial court did not err, much less plainly err, by denying

Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the warrantless search

of the curtilage of Defendant’s home.

- 11 - STATE V. JOHNSON

2. Search of Defendant’s Home

Defendant also asserts that the trial court plainly erred by denying his motion

to suppress evidence seized as a result of the search of his home because the warrant

was based on evidence seized from an unconstitutional search of the curtilage of his

home. However, because the search of Defendant’s curtilage was not

unconstitutional, the warrant obtained to search Defendant’s home was not based on

evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search. Accordingly, the trial court did not

err, much less plainly err, by denying his motion to suppress.

III. Conclusion

No unreasonable search occurred when Newman walked up Defendant’s

driveway and onto the porch, and the seizure of Chubby and the other dogs visible on

the front property was justified under the plain view doctrine. Furthermore, exigent

circumstances justified the warrantless search of Defendant’s backyard and the

seizure of the dogs found there. Finally, given the plain view discoveries of Chubby

and the other dogs on the front property, even if exigent circumstances had not

justified the backyard search and seizure of the dogs therein, the inevitable discovery

rule applies. Accordingly, the trial court did not err, much less plainly err, by denying

Defendant’s motion to suppress.

NO ERROR.

Chief Judge DILLON and Judge CARPENTER concur.

- 12 -