Judge Weaver held that the consensual sexual conduct at issue occurred in a private place and thus was private for purposes of the constitutional right of privacy. ( Id. at 7–8 (citing Mauk v. State, 242 Ga.App. 191, 529 S.E.2d 197, 198 (2000)).) Applying Georgia law, Judge Weaver reasoned that “it is the reasonable expectations of the room's occupants, and not the number of occupants, that controls” the determination as to whether a place is private.
Judge Weaver held that the consensual sexual conduct at issue occurred in a private place and thus was private for purposes of the constitutional right of privacy. ( Id. at 7–8 (citing Mauk v. State, 242 Ga.App. 191, 529 S.E.2d 197, 198 (2000)).) Applying Georgia law, Judge Weaver reasoned that “it is the reasonable expectations of the room's occupants, and not the number of occupants, that controls” the determination as to whether a place is private.
(Citation omitted.) Gravley v. State, supra at 403; see Mauk v. State, 242 Ga. App. 191 ( 529 S.E.2d 197) (2000). (c) "We conclude, from the text of the Fourth Amendment and from the historical and contemporary understanding of its purposes, that an individual has no legitimate expectation that open fields will remain free from warrantless intrusion by government officers.
No. 00-6782. MAUK v. GEORGIA. Ct.App. Ga. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 242 Ga. App. 191, 529 S.E.2d 197. No. 00-6806. WADDELL v. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
On February 2, 2000, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed Mauk's conviction on direct appeal. See Mauk v. State, 242 Ga.App. 191, 529 S.E.2d 197, 198-99 (Ga.Ct.App. 2000). The Georgia appellate court ruled that Powell was not applicable to Mauk's case.
In contrast, the conduct leading to Petitioner's conviction was anything but consensual and homosexual. Indeed, the record establishes that the conduct underlying Petitioner's conviction took place with a woman who was found struggling to get away from Petitioner. See Mauk v. State, 529 S.E.2d 197, 198 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). Moreover, in Lawrence, the Supreme Court was particularly concerned that the conduct at issue took place in the privacy of the home.