Seng Xiong appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. He contends the trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress, by improperly charging the jury, and by denying his motion for new trial on the four counts on which he was convicted. 1. With regard to the motion to suppress, the evidence shows that on September 8, 2003, officers responded to an anonymous tip that a stolen car was located at Xiong’s residence. From the road, an officer was able to see a car on jack-stands in the carport. A uniformed officer knocked on the door, and Xiong answered and consented to a search of the carport. In the carport, the officer saw the shell of a car that had been stripped of almost all of its interior parts. In addition, the vehicle identification number VIN plate was missing, the car had no license tag, the side windows were missing or broken, and car parts were all over the property. The officer checked for a VIN under the hood and found it engraved on the car frame. A computer check showed the car had been stolen. The officer then placed Xiong under arrest for possession of stolen property, and a search warrant was obtained. In the ensuing search, officers discovered auto parts inside and outside the home, as well as illegal drugs in a bedroom.
The trial court did not err by denying the motion to suppress. “Where a police officer enters upon private property only to the extent of knocking on outer doors, the Fourth Amendment is not violated because the officer is merely taking the same route as would any guest.” State v. Zackery , 193 Ga. App. 319 387 SE2d 606 1989. See also Bryant v. State , 288 Ga. App. 863 655 SE2d 707 2007. After answering the door, Xiong freely and voluntarily consented to the search that led to discovery of the stolen car and, eventually, the illegal drugs. See Pledger v. State , 257 Ga. App. 794, 799 572 SE2d 348 2002. The fact that the officer was acting on second hand knowledge of an anonymous tip is immaterial under these circumstances.
