declaring that "a purely subjective criterion is not appropriate," as by "use of a subjective test ... it would be possible for the government by edict or known systematic practice to condition the expectations of the populace in such a way that no one would have any real hope of privacy”
How later courts described this case
- declaring that "a purely subjective criterion is not appropriate," as by "use of a subjective test ... it would be possible for the government by edict or known systematic practice to condition the expectations of the populace in such a way that no one would have any real hope of privacy”
- noting that a purely subjective test would permit "the government by edict or by known systematic practice to condition the expectations of the populace in such a way that no one would have any real hope of privacy"
- holding that officers’ 21 warrantless use of a telescope to observe objects and activities within a home violated the Fourth Amendment
- holding that telescopic observation of the home "impair[s] a legitimate expectation of privacy"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Citta, 265 N.J. Super. 208 (1990)
However, Taborda and Kim are distinguishable; Taborda because it involved observations made with a high-power telescope through a window into the interior of a private residence, and Kim because although it held that observations of both the interior of an apartment and an outside balcony with a telescope and high-powered binoculars were illegal under the Fourth Amendment,
The opinion
DUMBAULD, Senior District Judge,
dissenting:
In my judgment there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to what can be seen by means of a long -familiar and generally used optical instrument.
I would reverse simpliciter.