On May 10, 2003 two police officers entered the property of Laszlo Kilyen in the European Court of Human Rights case, Kilyen v. Romania. Kilyen lives in Murgesti. The two officers suspected Kilyen of car theft. While Kilyen was on a trip, the officers came to his house. At 4pm the officers came to his house and they entered Kilyen’s yard. They broke the main gate in order to enter. The officers found two cars in the Kilyen’s shed. The officers looked through it and they found several boxes with spare car parts in it. Kilyen’s neighbor saw the officers in the yard and he questioned them about their presence. The officers told Kilyen’s neighbor that they were carrying out a police investigation about a car theft. They also told the neighbor that the cars in Kilyen’s shed were not the stolen vehicles. When Kilyen returned from his trip, he made a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office against the two officers. He made this complaint on May 15, 2003. The complaint alleged that the police officers trespassed and violated Article 192 of the Criminal Code. Kilyen also argued that the officers searched his home without consent and without a search warrant. The officers argued that they believed Kilyen’s neighbor was the owner of the house. Article 192 of the Criminal Code states, “[e]ntering, in any way and without having the right, a residence, a room, a shed or a surrounding area of any of these, without the consent of the person using them, or refusing to leave these places at the person’s request, is punishable by a term of imprisonment of six months to four years. Kilyen also argued a violation of Article 8 which states, “there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law,…” The European Court of Human Rights held that there was an interference with Kilyen’s rights. The officers violated Article 8 of the Convention. The Court also held that the respondent State is to pay the applicant. Do you think the court decided this case correctly? How does this case relate to the laws of search and seizure in the United States?