Actually, the opinion says that this case doesn't have anything to do with "reasonable expectations of privacy" like the government contended originally. The co

Actually, the opinion says that this case doesn't have anything to do with "reasonable expectations of privacy" like the government contended originally. The court says that this was actually trespass. It's an interesting distinction, they made the decision not on Katz's "expectations of privacy" test, but instead on common-law trespass which the Fourth Amendment was based on. So this decision clarifies that the "expectations of privacy" test added to the Fourth Amendment's common-law origin, it didn't replace it. (page 4 of the opinion, page 6 of the pdf): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf