had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his aunt’s backyard. The State relies on several United States Supreme Court cases to argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backyard because it was exposed to public view, but those cases are not controlling here. In Katz, the Supreme Court did state that “what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection,” but the Court went on to hold that government surveillance of a public phone booth violated the Fourth Amendment, despite the public and transparent nature of the booth. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Although other Supreme Court cases have used language simi .Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The State also argues, relying on Villarreal,
holding that the sca violates the fourth amendment to the extent that it allows government agents to obtain the contents of emails without a warrant holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant holding that if the application for a warrant contains probable cause apart from the improper information then the warrant is lawful and the independent source doctrine applies providing that the officers were not prompted to obtain the warrant by what they observed during the initial entry holding that the fourth amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment