A Wisconsin Police Officer began following the Defendant after watching Defendant's vehicle for some time, the Officer called the police department dispatcher and requested a squad response to a possible intoxicated driver. Defendant drove to his apartment complex with the Officer following where Defendant continued to drive around, as though "trying to lose" the officer. Subsequently, Defendant turned toward the parking garage underneath his apartment building, raised the garage door with his remote controlled opener, and "drove down beneath the apartment building into the parking garage.

Defendant was stopped by police inside the parking garage underneath his apartment building and subsequently arrested for operating while intoxicated. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer's conduct occurred during a warrantless entry into a constitutionally protected area-the curtilage of his home. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Defendant appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The issue is whether the parking garage underneath the apartment building constitutes the curtilage of Defendant's home such that it is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

You may locate this case using the following case citation, State v. Dumstrey, 366 Wis. 2d 64 , 873 N.W.2d 502 (Wis. Sup. Ct. 2016). You can use Google Scholar to find the case, once you locate the case, read the opinion and answer the following questions:

1. To make a privacy determination, what two questions does the court consider?

2. According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court the ultimate inquiry depends on the totality of the circumstances. In answering the questions to make a privacy determination what are the relevant factors [hint: six factors are relevant]?

3. How did the Wisconsin Supreme Court rule and why?