Ok, that explains a lot. Usually when there will be review by a higher court, the court issuing the decision must fit it into the legal framework to avoid sending up a red flag. But if this court knows there is little chance of getting reversed, they can extend the illegality of a search to cover the presence of a camera that had nothing to do with the legality in the first place. It doesn't fit the 4th Amendment caselaw framework, but I guess for them that doesn't matter.
Well, in fairness, we don't know if it does or not. But besides that, the state constitutions can always grant MORE protection than the US Constitution in terms of civil liberties. The US constitution is just a floor for rights.
You hit the nail on the head. This explains a lot because the decision absolutely doesn't within a 4th amendment context. (I should have read your post before I wrote my analysis, it would have saved me a lot of time.) This thread is emblematic of what's so good about freerepublic. The amount of posters who "got" the legal problems with this case, and had so many intelligent comments to add, was really high. What a pleasure to deal with a "demographic" that does not have its crack up its... ;)