iance ▁to ▁all ▁the ▁forces ▁of ▁the ▁Crown ." ▁The ▁U . S . ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁had ▁also ▁recognized ▁" the ▁inde fe as ible ▁right ▁of ▁personal ▁security " ▁as ▁what ▁is ▁most ▁bre ached ▁by ▁a ▁search ▁in ▁its ▁ 1 8 8 6 ▁Bo yd ▁case . ▁ ▁Oregon ' s ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁had , ▁since ▁ 1 9 3 1 , ▁recognized ▁this ▁as ▁a ▁priv acy ▁interest , ▁Young ▁wrote , ▁and ▁as ▁he ▁found ▁little ▁guidance ▁in ▁federal ▁priv acy ▁cases ▁beyond ▁the ▁instant ▁issues ▁of ▁those ▁cases , ▁the ▁majority ▁looked ▁to ▁Oregon ▁case ▁law ▁as ▁it ▁had ▁interpreted ▁Article ▁I , ▁Section ▁ 9 , ▁of ▁the ▁state ▁constitution , ▁the ▁counter part ▁to ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment . ▁Young ▁found ▁K atz s ▁two - part ▁test ▁un help ful ▁and ▁fla wed : ▁" The ▁proper ▁question , ▁thus , ▁is ▁not ▁what ▁the ▁def endant ▁expects ▁or ▁whether ▁that ▁expectation ▁is ▁reasonable ▁but ▁whether ▁the ▁constitution ▁protect s ▁the ▁def endant ." ▁In ▁this ▁case , ▁Young ▁concluded , ▁the ▁deput ies ▁had ▁tres pass ed ▁on ▁the ▁D ix s ons ' ▁land ▁and ▁viol ated ▁their ▁priv acy . ▁ ▁Judge ▁John ▁But t ler ▁wrote ▁a ▁special ▁conc urrence ▁for ▁himself ▁and ▁two ▁colle agues , ▁reaching ▁the ▁same ▁conclusion ▁as ▁the ▁pl ur ality ▁but ▁bas ing ▁it ▁on ▁different ▁logic ▁which ▁he ▁felt ▁was ▁more ▁in ▁comp liance ▁with ▁state ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁preced ent :