Court Opinion

ID: 9717199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:59:59.050351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.965044
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J.:
I join in reversal because the “reasonable expectation” rule of Kate v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967), is applicable only to searches conducted after December 18, 1967. Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S. Ct. 1030 (1969). Prior to that date, the search had to be “trespassory” to be within the, protection of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564 (1928) ; Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S. Ct. 993 (1942) ; On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S. Ct. 967 (1952). Since there was no trespass here, I would reverse. I would not decide, however, whether the search conducted violated privacy which appellees reasonably expected to exist.