FYI, the decision did not require a warrant for GPS tracking, only that the installation and long term monitoring was a "search" for 4th Amendment purposes. Thus, a warrant might not be necessary for exigent circumstances, i.e., to track a criminal such as a kidnapper during the course of a crime, or even for short term tracking, such as a few hours or a few days.
There is another case coming up before the Supremes on whether it is permissible to use a drug sniffing dog outside of a house constitutes a 4th amendment search. What is interesting here, is the Supremes a couple of years ago found that it was impermissible to use thermal imaging to search for drug houses, so why are they taking up the drug sniffing dog case?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
