▁obtained ▁from ▁the ▁search ▁suppress ed . ▁It ▁was ▁denied , ▁and ▁he ▁was ▁conv icted . ▁He ▁appe aled ▁to ▁the ▁state ' s ▁Supreme ▁Court . ▁The ▁case ▁was ▁not ▁argued ▁until ▁ 1 9 8 9 , ▁and ▁it ▁took ▁an ▁additional ▁two ▁years ▁for ▁the ▁court ▁to ▁decide . ▁ ▁In ▁early ▁ 1 9 9 1 ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁issued ▁its ▁decision , ▁holding ▁ 4 – 1 ▁that ▁the ▁evidence ▁should ▁have ▁been ▁suppress ed . ▁After ▁review ing ▁the ▁facts ▁of ▁the ▁case , ▁Justice ▁James ▁L . ▁Mor se ▁conced ed ▁that ▁the ▁search ▁was ▁law ful ▁under ▁Oliver . ▁However , ▁the ▁court ▁went ▁on ▁to ▁note ▁that ▁it ▁had ▁to ▁consider ▁whether ▁the ▁search ▁comp lied ▁with ▁Article ▁ 1 1 ▁of ▁the ▁state ▁constitution , ▁which ▁while ▁substantial ly ▁similar ▁to ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁did ▁have ▁some ▁differences ▁in ▁word ing . ▁Most ▁significantly , ▁it ▁referred ▁to ▁a ▁person ' s ▁" poss essions " ▁as ▁coming ▁under ▁its ▁pur view ▁rather ▁than ▁just ▁their ▁" effect s ". ▁ ▁Did ▁that ▁mean ▁it ▁applied ▁to ▁all ▁a ▁person ' s ▁land hold ings , ▁Mor se ▁asked ? ▁The ▁minimal ▁records ▁from ▁the ▁state ' s ▁original ▁constitution al ▁deb ates ▁did ▁not ▁offer ▁much ▁guidance , ▁so ▁he ▁looked ▁at ▁how ▁other ▁states ▁with ▁similar ▁language ▁had ▁addressed ▁the ▁issue . ▁They ▁had ▁divided ▁on ▁the ▁issue , ▁yet ▁at ▁the ▁same ▁time ▁states ▁that ▁used