Note its not private property Actually it is private property, and the size of the property does not matter either. The court ruled the way it did because the

Note its not private property Actually it is private property, and the size of the property does not matter either. The court ruled the way it did because the area of the property that was monitored was deemed to fall under the category of "open fields" This would likely be different if it could be shown that the owner was actively maintaining this area of his property, or erected some sort of barrier, or something to ensure that the area of his property he would like protected is not just an open field. It wouldn't even necessarily have to be a residence, although this would be the most unquestionable. Even still, I think it is a bad ruling, and I hope that it is overturned.