▁state ▁and ▁federal ▁law ▁on ▁this ▁issue , ▁the ▁state ' s ▁courts ▁had ▁constantly ▁followed ▁the ▁K atz ▁concept ▁of ▁root ing ▁priv acy ▁in ▁the ▁person , ▁rather ▁than ▁property . ▁He ▁also ▁shared ▁Marshall ' s ▁observation ▁that ▁the ▁Oliver ▁majority ▁had ▁suggested ▁that ▁a ▁reasonable ▁expectation ▁of ▁priv acy ▁dep ended ▁on ▁what ▁the ▁land owner ▁intended ▁to ▁shield ▁from ▁view ▁by ▁posting ▁or ▁f encing ▁the ▁land : ▁ ▁Judge ▁Joseph ▁B ella c osa ' s ▁diss ent , ▁address ing ▁not ▁only ▁Scott ▁but ▁a ▁companion ▁case ▁in ▁which ▁the ▁court ▁had ▁ruled ▁evidence ▁gathered ▁in ▁war rant less ▁administrative ▁searches ▁of ▁business es ▁to ▁be ▁in ad miss ible , ▁focused ▁largely ▁on ▁what ▁he ▁considered ▁to ▁be ▁the ▁majority ' s ▁fault y ▁reasoning ▁for ▁depart ing ▁from ▁Oliver . ▁In ▁a ▁similar ▁case ▁of ▁a ▁rural ▁mar iju ana ▁gro wer ▁four ▁years ▁earlier , ▁he ▁noted , ▁the ▁court ▁had ▁accepted ▁evidence ▁gathered ▁by ▁an ▁aer ial ▁search ▁and ▁decl ined ▁to ▁consider ▁the ▁same ▁priv acy ▁issues ▁that ▁def endant ▁had ▁raised . ▁The ▁majority ▁respond ed ▁that ▁in ▁that ▁case ▁she ▁had ▁not ▁raised ▁the ▁issue ▁of ▁her ▁land ▁being ▁posted . ▁ ▁State ▁v . ▁Johnson ▁ ▁Again , ▁as ▁Scott ▁was ▁reaching ▁the ▁New ▁York ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als , ▁another ▁mar iju ana ▁growing ▁investigation ▁across ▁the ▁country ▁again ▁gave ▁rise ▁to ▁a ▁state ▁court ' s ▁re jection ▁of ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine .