A former NJ State worker, Danny Noonan injured his back at work and had back surgery. He was placed on full disability; however, the State of NJ thought he was not truthful with them about his limitations. They believed he was able to do some work, even if it was work at a desk. They also had information that his wife had started a mink and chinchilla breeding farm on the 4 acres of land behind their home. They believed Mr. Noonan was helping her with the operation of this new business. Mr. Noonan claimed he did nothing related to the business - not even bookkeeping. NJ agents drove by the front of the Noonan property but could not see the backyard from the street. (The house was set back from the street and foliage made it impossible to see the backyard.) One side and to the rear of the Noonan property was completely wooded. The other side of the property was owned by a utility company. The entire back four acres was enclosed by a six feet high fence (a six-foot-high fence is permissible under local zoning laws); so one could not see into the Noonan's backyard while standing on the ground. The Utility Company's lot was cleared, as this lot was used to park utility vehicles. The Utility Company's lot also had a streetlight like pole on the property for security, and it extended 28 feet into the air. NJ agents investigating possible disability fraud requested that they be permitted to install a camera on this pole to view the Noonan's backyard and detect if Mr. Noonan was doing any work. They Utility company consented to a camera being placed in an already existing box on the pole. Over 24 days, State Agents recorded more than 500 hours of film. Images captured Mr. Noonan pushing a wheelbarrow, cleaning up animal waste, pushing a lawnmower to cut the grass, and using tools to make repairs to the animal cages. The footage also captured pictures of Mr. Noonan sunbathing in the nude on two occasions; and on another occasion, the Noonan's son relieving himself on a tree. Based on what we have reviewed in this class, discuss the following: 1) Can the utility company consent to the placement of a camera on their pole, knowing the camera will be used to view the Noonan property? 2) Does installation of the camera on the pole violate the Noonan family's 4th Amendment rights? Discuss this thoroughly based on issues we have discussed about the use of electronic surveillance and the open fields doctrine. 3) Would the film footage from the camera be admissible in a court of law? Why or Why not?