The decisions in California v. Ciraolo and Dow Chemical Company v. U.S. changed the expectation standard that was set out in the decision in Katz v. United States and incorporated in Title III. The judicial decisions in these cases reverted back to an analysis which allows the unwarranted uses of known technology. These decisions are incomprehensible both because their 'public availability' standard ignores the intrusiveness of new technologies and because all forms of surveillance require some physical intrusion of the suspect's property. A more appropriate approach would be to refocus fourth amendment analysis on the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. This narrow reading maintains the traditional Katz test enables fourth amendment protection to grow with the development of new technology. 155 footnotes.