The police were attempting to catch marijuana farmers in a heavily wooded area that had a locked gate and “no trespassing” signs posted. Despite these precautions taken by the two alleged marijuana farmers, the judge found the suspects had not established the "reasonable expectation of privacy” required for Fourth Amendment protection. The two suspects did not own the property in question.
"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," the judge held. It would be legal for the police to enter a private field to collect evidence, therefore, the judge concluded, it is also legal to install cameras there.