▁rule ▁in ▁D ix son ▁that ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine ▁did ▁not ▁apply ▁where ▁a ▁land owner ▁had , ▁like ▁Kir cho ff , ▁taken ▁aff irm ative ▁measures ▁to ▁control ▁access ▁to ▁their ▁land . ▁He ▁ground ed ▁this ▁in ▁state ▁constitution al ▁and ▁stat ut ory ▁prov isions ▁that ▁allowed ▁public ▁use ▁of ▁un post ed ▁land ▁for ▁many ▁out door ▁recre ational ▁activities ▁and ▁limited ▁the ▁li ability ▁of ▁land own ers ▁for ▁dam ages ▁suffered ▁by ▁those ▁they ▁allowed , ▁even ▁implicitly , ▁to ▁eng age ▁in ▁those ▁activities ▁on ▁un post ed ▁land . ▁" Th ese ▁prov isions ▁evidence ▁the ▁state ' s ▁policy ▁of ▁providing ▁the ▁public ▁with ▁certain ▁privileges ▁and ▁libert ies ▁not ▁permitted ▁under ▁the ▁common ▁law ", ▁he ▁wrote . ▁" They ▁evidence ▁no ▁intent , ▁however , ▁to ▁limit ▁the ▁right ▁of ▁land own ers ▁to ▁purs ue ▁their ▁affairs ▁free ▁from ▁un reg ulated ▁intr usion ▁by ▁officials ." ▁ ▁Last ly , ▁Mor se ▁said ▁that ▁while ▁the ▁Verm ont ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁was ▁not ▁completely ▁disc arding ▁K atz ▁as ▁the ▁basis ▁for ▁its ▁personal ty - root ed ▁concept ▁of ▁priv acy , ▁it ▁found ▁some ▁issues ▁doing ▁so . ▁It ▁was ▁not ▁comfortable ▁with ▁the ▁concept ▁of ▁a ▁reasonable ▁expectation , ▁since ▁that ▁could ▁too ▁easily ▁change ▁" with ▁political ▁wind s ▁and ▁the ▁perce ived ▁ex igen cies ▁of ▁the ▁day ▁... ▁The ▁question ▁is ▁not ▁what ▁society ▁is ▁prepared ▁to ▁accept ▁but ▁what ▁the ▁constitution