Under what circumstances has a defendant been found guilty of voyeurism by police officers listening into his home?

Under the compulsion of People v. Kaaienapua (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 283, 138 Cal.Rptr. 651, I concur in affirming defendant's conviction. Were I not bound by stare decisis, I [106 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11] would hold that the officers here violated defendant's reasonable expectations of privacy by listening at his residence door. The record shows that the door to defendant's apartment was locked (the officers kicked it in); the officers had to place their ears within two to three inches of the door to hear the conversations inside; and that defendant was talking in a normal tone. Under the Kaaienapua court's reasoning these facts do not assist defendant in the defense of his privacy.

However, I discern a philosophical anomaly in contrasting the following passages

Page 276