With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1990), abrogated, in part, on other grounds by State v. Felix, 2012 WI 36, ¶ 42, 339 Wis. 2d 670, 811 N.W.2d 775. "[T]he curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a [person's] home and the privacies of life and therefore has been considered part of [the] home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless entry for arrest also has been reasoned to extend to places where the person "has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place." Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 95 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 676-77 (9th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). We consider both constitutional contentions

A: holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home
B: holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth
C: recognizing reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent located on public campgrounds such that warrantless arrest of inhabitant requires exigent circumstances
D: holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in his tent pitched on public campground
C.