ices ▁heard ▁arguments ▁in ▁early ▁ 1 9 9 5 ▁and ▁rendered ▁their ▁decision ▁in ▁August . ▁They ▁considered ▁three ▁issues : ▁the ▁delay ▁in ▁trying ▁the ▁men , ▁whether ▁Bul lock ▁had ▁standing ▁to ▁challenge ▁the ▁evidence ▁against ▁him ▁obtained ▁from ▁the ▁war rant less ▁search ▁of ▁Bul lock ' s ▁property , ▁and ▁whether ▁the ▁state ▁constitution ' s ▁priv acy ▁prov isions ▁pre cluded ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine . ▁ ▁On ▁the ▁first ▁question , ▁Justice ▁Terry ▁N . ▁Tr iew e iler ▁held ▁for ▁a ▁un anim ous ▁court ▁that ▁the ▁six - month ▁dead line ▁had ▁not ▁been ▁passed ▁due ▁to ▁the ▁state ' s ▁appeal ▁that ▁granted ▁a ▁trial ▁de ▁nov o , ▁and ▁even ▁so ▁the ▁delay ▁had ▁not ▁been ▁pres um pt ively ▁pre jud icial . ▁The ▁next ▁question ▁was ▁resolved ▁in ▁Bul lock ' s ▁favor ▁as ▁the ▁court ▁held ▁that ▁its ▁own ▁prior ▁preced ent , ▁and ▁a ▁similar ▁case ▁from ▁New ▁Jersey , ▁that ▁anyone ▁charged ▁with ▁an ▁off ense ▁alleg ing ▁possession ▁of ▁something ▁automatically ▁has ▁standing ▁to ▁challenge ▁the ▁se iz ure ▁and ▁any ▁evidence ▁derived ▁from ▁it , ▁regardless ▁of ▁another ▁recent ▁U . S . ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁decision ▁that ▁had ▁narrow ed ▁the ▁scope ▁of ▁a ▁similar ▁long standing ▁rule ▁of ▁its ▁own . ▁ ▁Having ▁established ▁that ▁both ▁defend ants ▁had ▁standing ▁to ▁challenge ▁the ▁state ' s ▁evidence ▁as ▁un const itution ally ▁gathered , ▁Tr iew e iler ▁turned ▁to ▁that ▁final ▁question