, ▁as ▁the ▁pl ur ality ▁and ▁special ▁conc urrence ▁have ▁done ." ▁ ▁Oregon ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁ ▁Pro sec utors ▁appe aled ▁the ▁case ▁to ▁the ▁Oregon ▁Supreme ▁Court , ▁which ▁heard ▁arguments ▁in ▁March ▁ 1 9 8 8 ▁and ▁returned ▁its ▁decision ▁at ▁the ▁end ▁of ▁the ▁year . ▁Writing ▁for ▁a ▁un anim ous ▁court , ▁Justice ▁W . ▁Michael ▁G illet te ▁aff ir med ▁the ▁lower ▁court ' s ▁holding ▁that ▁Article ▁I , ▁Section ▁ 9 ▁provided ▁bro ader ▁priv acy ▁protection ▁than ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁and ▁thus ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine ▁did ▁not ▁apply ▁in ▁state ▁pro sec utions . ▁ ▁After ▁review ing ▁the ▁facts ▁of ▁the ▁case ▁and ▁all ▁the ▁app ell ate ▁court ' s ▁opinions , ▁G illet te ▁considered ▁all ▁the ▁arguments . ▁The ▁two ▁cases ▁Van ▁Ho omm issen ▁had ▁pointed ▁to ▁as ▁preced ent ▁adopt ing ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine ▁were ▁actually ▁not ▁dispos itive ▁of ▁the ▁issue , ▁since ▁one ▁had ▁involved ▁a ▁search ▁on ▁public ▁land ▁and ▁the ▁other ▁appeared ▁to ▁rely ▁on ▁circumstances ▁unique ▁to ▁that ▁case . ▁In ▁another ▁of ▁its ▁own ▁recent ▁hold ings , ▁he ▁noted , ▁the ▁state ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁had ▁also ▁rejected ▁K atz ''' s ▁reasonable ▁expectation ▁test , ▁so ▁in ▁the ▁instant ▁case ▁the ▁court ▁could ▁consider ▁the ▁issue ▁without ▁re lying ▁on ▁it . ▁ ▁G illet te ▁rejected ▁the ▁text ual ist ▁interpretation ▁of ▁the ▁constitution al ▁language ▁that ▁had ▁been