▁of ▁bu ying ▁the ▁property , ▁and ▁a ▁friend ▁who ▁was ▁helping ▁them ▁grow ▁the ▁plants , ▁were ▁arrested ▁and ▁later ▁conv icted ▁of ▁manufact uring ▁and ▁possess ing ▁a ▁controlled ▁subst ance . ▁ ▁Oregon ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁ ▁The ▁appe als ▁court ▁revers ed ▁the ▁conv iction ▁after ▁hearing ▁the ▁appeal ▁en ▁b anc ▁in ▁ 1 9 8 7 . ▁" The ▁decis ive ▁issue ▁is ▁not , ▁as ▁the ▁trial ▁court ▁apparently ▁thought , ▁one ▁of ▁federal ▁law ", ▁Judge ▁Thomas ▁Young ▁wrote ▁for ▁the ▁pl ur ality . ▁" Wh ether ▁def endant ' s ▁land ▁is ▁constitution ally ▁protected ▁depends , ▁in ▁the ▁first ▁instance , ▁not ▁on ▁United ▁States ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁cases ▁interpre ting ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment , ▁but ▁on ▁the ▁basic ▁principles ▁underlying ▁the ▁Oregon ▁Constitution ▁... ▁we ▁need ▁not ▁join ▁the ▁federal ▁retre at ▁from ▁the ▁constitution al ▁requirements ." ▁ ▁"[ D ] o es ▁the ▁constitution ▁protect ▁property ▁as ▁property , ▁or ▁is ▁its ▁protection ▁of ▁property ▁a ▁means ▁to ▁a ▁greater ▁end ?" ▁Young ▁asked . ▁The ▁majority ▁believed ▁the ▁answer ▁was ▁the ▁latter , ▁to ▁which ▁Young ▁c ited ▁writ ings ▁of ▁William ▁Pitt , ▁ 1 st ▁Earl ▁of ▁Ch ath am , ▁who ▁strongly ▁supported ▁the ▁colon ists ▁in ▁the ▁years ▁before ▁the ▁American ▁Revolution , ▁in ▁support ▁of ▁their ▁understanding ▁of ▁this ▁concept ▁of ▁priv acy : ▁" The ▁poor est ▁man ▁may , ▁in ▁his ▁c ott age , ▁bid ▁def