▁by ▁posting ▁the ▁property ' s ▁bounds ▁at ▁ ▁intervals ▁he ▁had ▁secured ▁a ▁reasonable ▁expectation ▁of ▁priv acy . ▁ ▁Following ▁Oliver , ▁a ▁five - just ice ▁panel ▁of ▁the ▁Third ▁Department ▁of ▁the ▁state ' s ▁App ell ate ▁Division ▁un anim ously ▁rejected ▁that ▁argument ▁in ▁ 1 9 9 1 . ▁" The ▁mari hu ana ▁in ▁question ▁here ", ▁it ▁wrote , ▁" was ▁clearly ▁grown ▁in ▁an ▁open , ▁un c ult iv ated ▁field ▁away ▁from ▁the ▁cur til age ▁of ▁any ▁resident ial ▁structure ; ▁thus , ▁def endant ▁had ▁no ▁legit imate ▁expectation ▁of ▁priv acy ." ▁Scott ▁appe aled ▁to ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als , ▁New ▁York ' s ▁highest ▁court . ▁ ▁In ▁ 1 9 9 2 , ▁Judge ▁Stephen ▁Han cock ▁wrote ▁for ▁the ▁majority ▁in ▁a ▁ 4 – 3 ▁decision ▁revers ing ▁the ▁app ell ate ▁court ▁and ▁Scott ' s ▁conv iction ▁that ▁rejected ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine . ▁Like ▁Marshall ▁and ▁Oregon ' s ▁D ix son ▁court , ▁he ▁found ▁O li vers ▁rec ourse ▁to ▁a ▁property - based ▁priv acy ▁interest ▁at ▁odd s ▁with ▁K atz ▁reasonable ▁expectation ▁test . ▁But ▁that ▁would ▁have ▁little ▁bearing ▁as ▁the ▁majority ▁found ▁New ▁York ' s ▁constitution , ▁" with ▁its ▁own ▁unique ▁history ", ▁more ▁relevant ▁to ▁the ▁issues ▁raised ▁by ▁Scott ' s ▁case . ▁ ▁Prior ▁to ▁ 1 9 3 8 ▁New ▁York , ▁Han cock