State v. Brett W. Dumstrey
873 N.W.2d 502
Wis.2016Background
- Late-night driving: Officer Dejaríais (off-duty, plainclothes) observed Brett Dumstrey driving erratically, followed him, and summoned a squad for a suspected intoxicated driver.
- Dumstrey drove into the locked underground parking garage beneath his apartment building using a remote opener; Officer Dejaríais followed and prevented the door from closing to preserve access.
- Dejaríais met Dumstrey in the garage, displayed ID and told him to wait; responding Officer Lichucki entered the garage, observed signs of intoxication, requested field sobriety tests (refused), and arrested Dumstrey for OWI.
- Procedural posture: Circuit court denied Dumstrey’s motion to suppress; court of appeals affirmed; Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
- Legal challenge: Dumstrey did not contest reasonable suspicion or probable cause but argued the officers’ warrantless entry into the parking garage violated the Fourth Amendment because the garage was curtilage of his home (or he had a reasonable expectation of privacy).
- Holding below and here: The court held the garage is not curtilage and Dumstrey had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the garage; therefore the stop and arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the underground parking garage is curtilage of Dumstrey’s home | Garage is part of the home’s curtilage (attached/enclosed, used to access residence, secured from public) | Garage is a common area serving all tenants, not part of an individual apartment’s curtilage | Not curtilage — Dunn factors (proximity, enclosure, use, steps to exclude) weigh against curtilage |
| Whether Dumstrey had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garage | He paid for assigned spot, garage is locked and accessible only to tenants, used to protect vehicle from elements/crime | Shared access, no right to exclude cotenants/guests, use limited to parking — not intimate home activities | No reasonable expectation of privacy — factors (property interest, control, right to exclude, precautions, private use, historical notions) do not support it |
| Whether officers’ entry/seizure in the garage violated the Fourth Amendment | Entry into curtilage without warrant made seizure unlawful | Because garage is not curtilage and no reasonable privacy expectation existed, warrantless entry/stop/arrest did not violate Fourth Amendment | |
| Whether visual observations and arrest constituted a search requiring a warrant | Entry into protected curtilage to make observations would be a search/seizure | Observations were made during a lawful stop/arrest; visual observation is not an independent search | Court treated the encounter as a seizure (stop and arrest) but found no separate Fourth Amendment search in the garage because area lacks curtilage/privacy protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless in-home arrest presumptively unreasonable)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (four-factor curtilage test)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (trespass/curtilage-based search analysis)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (trespass doctrine added to Katz analysis)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (curtilage is part of the home)
- State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158 (Wisconsin case applying curtilage to backyard arrests)
- State v. Conrad, 63 Wis. 2d 616 (discussing reasonable-expectation analysis in shared areas)
- State v. Martwick, 231 Wis. 2d 801 (curtilage as constitutional fact; adoption of Dunn factors)