Holding: Existence of reasonable expectation of privacy in a stairway leading to the upper levels of a dwelling is decided case-by-case, rather than under bright-line rule. ¶¶33-34. The various factors listed in State v. Thompson, 222 Wis. 2d 179, 186, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998) support these defendants’ expectations of privacy:Property interest/legitimate presence: The defendants included the owner who lived on the second floor, and others who rented the attic from him. ¶37.Dominion & control/actions evincing privacy: The defendants were the only ones with unlimited access to the stairway, which they regulated with a deadbolt lock. ¶¶38-40.Use of property: The owner used the stairway to access his residence, and he therefore had a clearly reasonable expectation of privacy, ¶41;the question is closer for the other defendants, who rented the attic and used it for a purely commercial purpose (drugs), entitling them to less protection than for a residence, but because this use was covert and secretive, and because of the efforts undertaken to keep others out, the use “is consistent with historical notions of privacy.” ¶¶42-43.

State v. Melvin Thompson, 222 Wis. 2d 179, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998) For Thompson: Phillip J. BrehmIssue/Holding:No published Wisconsin case has specifically addressed whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital emergency room or operating room. Accordingly, we analyze the question under the general approach for determining whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area where evidence is gathered.