KY: Def carries burden on curtilage; he failed to show motorcycle parked near front door was on it

Defendant’s motorcycle was parked near his front door, but he fails to show that it was within the curtilage of his house. He carries that burden. Bessinger v. Commonwealth, 2025 Ky. App. LEXIS 42 (May 16, 2025):

Here, Bessinger’s vehicle was parked close to the garage door, but that proximity alone is not enough to determine the vehicle was within the curtilage of the home. The property descriptions in the record are limited, but Bessinger’s vehicle was parked at the front of the residence (not along a side or back) and within the area the public could enter when approaching the front door. The vehicle was not behind a gate, around the back of the home, enclosed in any way, covered or shielded from passersby, nor did the home have signs denying access to the area. While the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing the constitutional validity of a warrantless search, it was Bessinger’s burden to show his vehicle was within the curtilage. See Commonwealth v. Lane, 553 S.W.3d 203, 206 (Ky. 2018) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Coleman, 923 F.3d 450, 455 (6th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Bessinger did not meet his burden. Based on the facts before us, Bessinger did not have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in his vehicle as the appellant in Collins had in his motorcycle because Bessinger’s vehicle was not within the home’s protected curtilage. See Collins, 584 U.S. at 592-94.

Beyond the mere physical location, Collins is also distinguishable by consent. In Collins, the police officer entered the property without consent. See generally id. Here, Deputy Jewell came to Bessinger’s home after a citizen complaint and police dispatch to his residence. The deputy was on the driveway with Bessinger’s permission, and Bessinger consented to Deputy Jewell approaching Payne’s vehicle, a car parked immediately beside Bessinger’s vehicle. Again, these circumstances negate Bessinger’s expectation of privacy for his vehicle at that time.

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Curtilage. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.