Commonwealth v. Ousley, 393 S.W.3d 15

Police entered the Appellee's curtilage at night to perform a trash pull on closed trash cans not out for curbside collection; evidence of drug trafficking was found in the cans; the trial court allowed the trash pulls to stand, and the Court of Appeals reversed on Fourth Amendment grounds.
Ousley lived in a dense urban townhouse with a driveway layout that placed trash cans near the house and storage shed, not at the curb; the cans were reportedly accessible from the street but within a short distance of the home.
Detective Ford conducted two warrantless trash pulls late at night on two different occasions, discovering drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine residue, leading to a search warrant for the home and subsequent charges.
The trial court made specific on-record findings about the cans' location and how a visitor would approach the front door, describing the cans as near the house and between the shed and street.
The Court of Appeals held the pulls unlawful under existing Kentucky and federal precedents (Greenwood, Quintana, Smith), prompting discretionary review to resolve the curtilage versus trash-pull issue.
The Supreme Court's curtilage framework (Dunn) and privacy expectations guide the analysis, focusing on whether the cans were within the protected curtilage rather than merely whether a container was closed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trash pulls violated the Fourth Amendment by intruding on curtilage	Ousley argues the cans were within curtilage and protected	Commonwealth argues Greenwood applies or that public-accessibility analysis controls	Trash pulls were illegal; cans were within curtilage and protected.
Whether the trial court's and Court of Appeals' factual findings were properly applied	Appeals substituted facts not clearly erroneous	Findings supported; de novo legal review warranted	Court of Appeals erred in its factual posture but correct on law under curtilage analysis.
What standard governs closed containers inside curtilage for Fourth Amendment purposes	Container location within curtilage triggers protection	Greenwood could apply depending on location	Curtilage analysis governs; closed containers inside curtilage protected absent exception.
Whether invadable curtilage permits warrantless entry for routine inquiries	Quintana allows invadable curtilage entry for legitimate contact	Covert trash search without contact violates Quintana	Police entry to curtilage for a trash pull without engaging occupants violated Fourth Amendment.
Whether abandonment doctrine defeats privacy interests in curtilage trash	Trash abandoned when placed for collection	Abandonment applies regardless of curtilage	Abandonment analysis is not controlling; curtilage protection applies.

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (trash left for collection outside curtilage not protected without reasonable privacy expectation)
Quintana v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 753 (Ky.2008) (curtilage analysis governs invadability and consent in residential approach)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (curtilage factors to determine protection)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (property rights and location impact Fourth Amendment protection)