KY: Def’s trailer in the woods was observed from open fields; no crossing of the curtilage

KSP officers received an anonymous tip defendant was manufacturing methamphetamine on his rural property. They went to the address given to find that it was his mother’s house, and he lived down a gravel road in the woods. They went down the road, past two more residences and saw defendant’s mobile home. Applying Dunn, they were off the curtilage and in open fields when they made the observation of a one-step meth lab in bottles. Commonwealth v. Dixon, 2016 Ky. LEXIS 11 (Feb. 18, 2016). Maybe a lesson about hearings, but maybe defense counsel was satisfied with the answer at the time it was given, but obviously not when writing the appeal brief:

The Commonwealth carried the burden in this case to demonstrate that the warrantless entry falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and part of that burden was proving that the vantage point was outside of the curtilage. King v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.3d 119, 122 (Ky. 2012). We are satisfied that the Commonwealth met its burden when Trooper White unequivocally testified that Trooper Smith did not invade the curtilage.

We are generally hesitant to be persuaded by such a conclusive statement from a witness. However, we cannot fault the trial court for relying on such testimony when it was uncontested and further, supported by the facts as outlined above. Dixon was free to attack this conclusion through cross examination or conflicting testimony but he failed to do so. He did not ask Trooper White to define his understanding of curtilage; he did not question Trooper White’s line of sight; nor did he inquire as to how Trooper Smith proceeded to the vantage point. Perhaps more importantly, Dixon did not offer any testimony as to his use of the area in question nor any testimony regarding any affirmative steps he may have taken to secure its privacy.

Therefore, based on the totality of the Dunn factors, as well as Trooper White’s uncontroverted testimony, we hold that neither trooper unlawfully encroached on the trailer’s curtilage. Thus, Dixon’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when Trooper White later relied on his observations to enter the trailer according to exigent circumstances and ultimately obtain a search warrant.