▁noted , ▁had ▁restricted ▁searches ▁and ▁se iz ures ▁only ▁at ▁the ▁stat ut ory ▁level . ▁When ▁the ▁state ▁constitution ▁was ▁am ended ▁that ▁year , ▁in ▁addition ▁to ▁language ▁similar ▁to ▁that ▁of ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁that ▁had ▁long ▁been ▁in ▁the ▁stat ute , ▁it ▁included ▁a ▁provision ▁explicitly ▁including ▁tele communic ations ▁under ▁the ▁same ▁war rant ▁requirements , ▁a ▁reaction ▁to ▁the ▁U . S . ▁Supreme ▁Court ' s ▁Ol m st ead ▁case ▁a ▁de cade ▁earlier , ▁which ▁had ▁held ▁that ▁police ▁did ▁not ▁need ▁a ▁war rant ▁for ▁wire t apping ▁tele ph ones ▁since ▁that ▁took ▁place ▁far ▁from ▁the ▁property ▁of ▁those ▁communic ating ▁over ▁them . ▁Therefore , ▁according ▁to ▁Han cock , ▁it ▁did ▁not ▁follow ▁that ▁the ▁state ▁constitution ▁should ▁or ▁could ▁be ▁interpreted ▁in ▁the ▁same ▁way ▁the ▁Oliver ▁Court ▁had ▁interpreted ▁the ▁federal ▁constitution . ▁ ▁Han cock ▁turned ▁to ▁the ▁second ▁part ▁of ▁the ▁K atz ▁test : ▁whether ▁Scott ' s ▁interest ▁in ▁his ▁priv acy ▁assert ed ▁by ▁posting ▁his ▁property ▁was ▁object ively ▁reasonable . ▁The ▁Oliver ▁majority ▁had ▁dismiss ed ▁the ▁idea , ▁pointing ▁instead ▁to ▁social ▁cons ensus ▁as ▁where ▁to ▁look , ▁but , ▁the ▁judge ▁wrote : ▁ ▁While ▁Han cock ▁conced ed ▁that ▁property ▁rights ▁do ▁not ▁automatically ▁create ▁a ▁priv acy ▁interest , ▁his ▁review ▁of ▁the ▁state ' s ▁stat ut ory ▁and ▁case ▁law ▁convinced ▁him ▁that , ▁in ▁interpre ting ▁both