East Norriton Medical Associates, Ltd. v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that officers’ 21 warrantless use of a telescope to observe objects and activities within a home violated the Fourth Amendment
• warrantless use of telescope to see objects not visible to the naked eye violates the Fourth Amendment
• “We disagree . . . that the amount of Fourth Amendment recognition accorded to a person’s privacy expectations may vary solely on the basis of whether his activity is criminal or innocent.”
• “the reasonableness of an expectation of privacy [is] logically dependent principally ... on the degree to which the locale is viewable by a member of the public without visual aids.”
• purely subjective criterion is not appropriate and is not called for by Katz
• telescope and binoculars from vantage point in nearby building

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).