In this pair of cases,the first may serve as precedent for the second.Decide whether the second case is so relevantly similar to the first that it should be decided identically.Explain your decision.
First case:The owner of an amusement park,believing that homosexual activity was taking place in its pay toilets,authorized police to use an observation pipe leading from the roof to the booths.Officer H regularly visited the roof for surveillance.If he observed illegal conduct,he would notify officers below,who would make the arrest.A court ruled that the evidence of Officer H was illegally obtained and set aside the information.
Second case:The management of a department store authorized police to observe suspected illegal homosexual activity in the men's room.An officer did observe such activity and arrested the participants.But in this case,the officer looked through a legitimately installed vent instead of a special spypipe.Furthermore,in this case,the booths,unlike those in the first case,were not pay toilets (and thus were not in the same sense "private").Finally,unlike in the first case,the observed behavior was committed in the space below the partition,and thus was observable by anyone who might have been in the public,or common-use,portion of the men's room at the time,though nobody was.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In this pair of cases,the first may serve as precedent for the second.Decide whether the second case is so relevantly similar to the first that it should be decided identically.Explain your decision.
First case:The owner of an amusement park,believing that homosexual activity was taking place in its pay toilets,authorized police to use an observation pipe leading from the roof to the booths.Officer H regularly visited the roof for surveillance.If he observed illegal conduct,he would notify officers below,who would make the arrest.A court ruled that the evidence of Officer H was illegally obtained and set aside the information.
Second case:The management of a department store authorized police to observe suspected illegal homosexual activity in the men's room.An officer did observe such activity and arrested the participants.But in this case,the officer looked through a legitimately installed vent instead of a special spypipe.Furthermore,in this case,the booths,unlike those in the first case,were not pay toilets (and thus were not in the same sense "private").Finally,unlike in the first case,the observed behavior was committed in the space below the partition,and thus was observable by anyone who might have been in the public,or common-use,portion of the men's room at the time,though nobody was.

In This Pair of Cases,the First May Serve as Precedent