Smithson v. State

Marijuana plants, which were growing in areas separated by trails leading away from the defendant's mowed land and were not growing inside any structure or protected from view, were outside curtilage of the defendant's home.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

John Lewis Smithson was charged with manufacturing marijuana and attempting to distribute marijuana following the discovery of several patches of marijuana plants growing in the wooded lot behind his home. The jury deadlocked on the attempt to distribute count which was then dismissed but found Smithson guilty of manufacturing marijuana.1 On appeal, Smithson argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because the warrantless search and seizure by police was within the curtilage of his home. We disagree and affirm. “Whether evidence is found within the curtilage of a residence is a mixed question of fact and law. On appeal, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but owe no deference to the trial court’s conclusions of law. Instead, we are free to apply anew the legal principles to the facts.” Citations omitted. Espinoza v. State , 265 Ga. 171, 172 1 454 SE2d 765 1995.

Evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing showed that officers observed, from a helicopter, marijuana plants growing in several small, open areas on wooded property behind Smithson’s home. The area where the plants were found was beyond the cut lawn surrounding Smithson’s home. A stand of trees separated the open areas from the residence. Officers on the ground searched behind Smithson’s home and discovered several well-worn trails leading from the home to cultivated areas where the marijuana plants were growing. Some of the plants were covered with wire mesh. Beside one of the trails, officers found two five-gallon buckets planted with marijuana. Officers seized a total of 64 marijuana plants from these areas. After the plants were seized, Smithson gave officers consent to search his home and property.

Smithson v. State

Marijuana plants, which were growing in areas separated by trails leading away from the defendant's mowed land and were not growing inside any structure or protected from view, were outside curtilage of the defendant's home.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report