▁" I ▁would ▁hold ▁that , ▁if ▁it ▁is ▁necessary ▁for ▁the ▁officers ▁to ▁tres pass ▁on ▁property ▁not ▁within ▁the ▁cur til age ▁in ▁order ▁to ▁observe ▁the ▁activity ▁or ▁cont rab and ▁in ▁question , ▁there ▁is ▁an ▁un reason able ▁search ▁and , ▁therefore , ▁any ▁en su ing ▁se iz ure ▁would ▁be ▁un law ful ." ▁In ▁the ▁instant ▁case , ▁But t ler ▁said ▁that ▁it ▁had , ▁as ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁deput ies ▁had ▁test ified ▁that ▁he ▁and ▁his ▁partner ▁had ▁at ▁all ▁times ▁believed ▁they ▁were ▁on ▁the ▁l umber ▁company ' s ▁property ▁and ▁would ▁not ▁have ▁entered ▁without ▁a ▁war rant ▁or ▁permission ▁had ▁they ▁known ▁they ▁were ▁not . ▁ ▁Judge ▁George ▁Van ▁Ho om issen ▁wrote ▁one ▁of ▁two ▁diss ents , ▁taking ▁issue ▁with ▁every ▁aspect ▁of ▁the ▁pl ur ality ▁opinion — arg uing ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁evidence ▁that ▁the ▁fram ers ▁of ▁the ▁state ▁constitution ▁had ▁intended ▁it ▁be ▁read ▁more ▁than ▁literally , ▁that ▁the ▁appe als ▁court ▁was ▁ign oring ▁earlier ▁preced ents ▁that ▁had ▁explicitly ▁adopted ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine , ▁that ▁the ▁defend ants ▁had ▁not ▁raised ▁a ▁tres pass ▁claim ▁against ▁the ▁deput ies ▁at ▁trial , ▁and ▁that ▁courts ▁in ▁other ▁states ▁with ▁similar ▁constitution al ▁language ▁had ▁found ▁it ▁compatible ▁with ▁the ▁doctrine . ▁"[ T ] he ▁pl ur ality ▁has ▁hop eless ly ▁confused ▁constitution al ▁law ▁with ▁the ▁civil ▁and ▁criminal ▁law ▁of ▁tres pass