State v. Biggar

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant’s act in leaving the stall door ajar by one inch did not eliminate the subjective expectation of privacy and, thus, the policeman’s look into the stall was a search
• determining that the defendant exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy by closing the door to a toilet stall, and the fact that the door did not close completely did not eliminate this expectation
• citing, inter alia, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 576 (1967)
• defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a closed toilet stall, recognizable by society as objectively reasonable
• defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a closed toilet stall, recognizable by society as objectively reasonable
• reasonable expectation of privacy not eliminated by crack one half to one inch wide where toilet stall door did not close properly

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).