▁to ▁count en ance ▁in ▁silence ▁the ▁extreme ▁and ▁unw arr anted ▁jud icial ▁activ ism ▁of ▁which ▁the ▁opinion ▁is ▁an ▁example ." ▁ ▁Pe ck ▁suggested ▁that ▁the ▁majority ' s ▁confusion ▁over ▁the ▁meaning ▁of ▁" poss essions " ▁in ▁the ▁state ▁constitution ▁was ▁" a ▁calculated ▁t actic ▁rather ▁than ▁the ▁result ▁of ▁interpret ive ▁in comp et ency ▁... ▁Dis reg arding ▁a ▁word ▁because ▁it ▁may ▁have ▁different ▁mean ings ▁in ▁different ▁context s ▁constit utes ▁an ▁argument ▁weak ▁to ▁the ▁point ▁of ▁abs urd ity ." ▁By ▁doing ▁so , ▁he ▁charged , ▁the ▁majority ▁had ▁been ▁able ▁to ▁substitute ▁its ▁own ▁meaning . ▁If ▁that ▁had ▁not ▁been ▁the ▁plan , ▁" I ▁am ▁afraid ▁that ▁the ▁majority ' s ▁training ▁in ▁elementary ▁logic , ▁if ▁any , ▁failed ▁to ▁pen et rate ▁or ▁make ▁a ▁last ing ▁impression . ▁The [ ir ] ▁reasoning ▁is ▁a ▁s yl log istic ▁bl under ▁and ▁a ▁non ▁sequ it ur ." ▁ ▁There ▁was ▁no ▁constitution al ▁problem ▁presented ▁by ▁the ▁case , ▁Pe ck ▁said ; ▁the ▁state ' s ▁existing ▁laws ▁were ▁enough ▁protection ▁for ▁land own ers . ▁ ▁The ▁ins istence ▁that ▁police ▁needed ▁a ▁war rant ▁to ▁search ▁any ▁posted ▁or ▁f enced ▁land ▁due ▁to ▁the ▁state ' s ▁tres pass ▁laws ▁was , ▁Pe ck ▁wrote , ▁" like ▁saying ▁a ▁police ▁cru iser , ▁in ▁respond ing ▁to ▁an ▁emer gency ▁call , ▁may ▁not ▁exceed ▁the ▁speed