State v. Patterson
319 P.3d 588
Kan. Ct. App.2014Background
- Police obtained and executed a warrant to search the residence at 2720 N. Erie, Wichita, based on trash discoveries of marijuana residue.
- A white Mercedes was parked in the driveway backed into the attached garage; Patterson’s teenage son sat in the car when officers arrived.
- Officers searched the Mercedes during execution of the residential warrant and found drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a handgun; other contraband was found inside the house.
- Patterson was charged with several drug- and firearm-related offenses; he moved to suppress all evidence and separately to suppress evidence seized from the Mercedes.
- The district court denied suppression of evidence obtained from the house but granted suppression of evidence from the Mercedes, holding the car was outside the residence’s curtilage and thus outside the warrant’s scope.
- The State appealed, arguing the Mercedes was within the curtilage (so covered by the warrant) and, alternatively, that the searching officer acted in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Patterson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search warrant’s scope included the Mercedes parked in the driveway | The car was not within the residence’s curtilage and thus not covered by a warrant naming only the residence | The driveway/car were within the curtilage, so a warrant for the residence covered the vehicle | The car was within the curtilage; the search did not exceed the warrant’s scope (reversed suppression) |
| Whether objective indicia tied the vehicle to the premises owner | The Mercedes lacked indicia of ownership/control by the resident (a visitor’s/third‑party vehicle) | The car’s position, proximity to garage, occupant (resident’s son), and later-found title reasonably connected it to the residence | Officers had objectively reasonable facts linking the vehicle to the premises; search justified under warrant scope |
| Applicability of Dunn curtilage factors | Factors support that the driveway/car were not so intimately tied to the home | Factors and facts (proximity, enclosure, use, protection from observation) support inclusion in curtilage | Applying Dunn factors, the court found the vehicle under the home’s Fourth Amendment ‘umbrella’ |
| Good‑faith exception to warrant scope (alternative) | Good faith cannot rescue an unlawful search of a vehicle outside curtilage | Officer reasonably believed vehicle was within warrant scope; search in good faith | Court resolved case on curtilage; good‑faith argument rendered moot by holding car within curtilage |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (articulates four-factor curtilage test)
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) (protects home and surrounding privacies)
- State v. Basurto, 15 Kan. App. 2d 264 (1991) (warrant for residence may extend to outbuildings/vehicles within curtilage)
- State v. Fisher, 283 Kan. 272 (2007) (standard of review for curtilage mixed question)
- State v. McClelland, 215 Kan. 81 (1974) (parking area in front of house considered part of premises)
- State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510 (1972) (search of trash in rear yard part of curtilage analysis)
- United States v. Finnigin, 113 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 1997) (vehicles within curtilage may be treated as part of residence for warrant purposes)
- United States v. Gottschalk, 915 F.2d 1459 (10th Cir. 1990) (discusses ownership/control indicia for vehicles on premises)