. ▁Since ▁the ▁U . S . ▁Supreme ▁Court ' s ▁recent ▁dec isions ▁on ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine ▁had ▁revealed ▁" what ▁appear ▁to ▁be ▁seem ing ▁incons isten cies ", ▁he ▁believed ▁it ▁was ▁proper ▁for ▁the ▁court ▁to ▁re cons ider ▁whether ▁it ▁was ▁good ▁law ▁in ▁Mont ana . ▁ ▁After ▁ret rac ing ▁its ▁history ▁at ▁the ▁federal ▁level , ▁Tri we iler ▁turned ▁to ▁the ▁state ' s ▁cases , ▁where ▁cases ▁that ▁had ▁u ph eld ▁the ▁doctrine ▁after ▁K atz ▁but ▁before ▁Oliver ▁and ▁D unn ▁had ▁u ph eld ▁it . ▁He ▁believed ▁that ▁the ▁instant ▁case , ▁however , ▁could ▁be ▁" fact ually ▁distinguished " ▁from ▁those ▁preced ents , ▁where ▁the ▁court ▁had ▁not ▁considered ▁the ▁defend ants ' ▁expect ations ▁of ▁priv acy ▁over ▁their ▁open ▁fields ▁to ▁be ▁reasonable ▁due ▁to ▁the ▁circumstances ▁of ▁those ▁cases . ▁ ▁Pre ced ent ▁also ▁held ▁that ▁while ▁the ▁language ▁of ▁Article ▁II , ▁Section ▁ 1 1 , ▁in ▁the ▁Mont ana ▁Constitution ▁was , ▁like ▁the ▁corresponding ▁prov isions ▁of ▁New ▁York ▁and ▁Oregon ' s , ▁similar ▁to ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment , ▁it ▁guaranteed ▁bro ader ▁prote ctions ▁against ▁un law ful ▁search ▁and ▁se iz ure . ▁Tr iew e iler ▁looked ▁at ▁the ▁Oregon , ▁New ▁York ▁and ▁Washington ▁cases . ▁He ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁common ▁element ▁was ▁that ▁the ▁defend ants ▁had ▁taken ▁steps ▁to ▁exclude ▁all ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁public ▁save