Too bad common sense didn’t apply in Kelo v. New London. This decision goes on and on about the sanctity of personal property. Kelo says the government can take your property and give it to somebody else if they will pay higher taxes on it.
It will be interesting to see how this ruling affects ongoing cases. Will the evidence gathered during actual surveillance be thrown out because some of the surveillance was conducted using a warrantless tracker? One would have to weigh the the basic idea that visual surveillance is open field, against the assistance a tracker give law enforcement. You don't have to get into the field until you detect movement. It will take while for all this to shake out since many cases take years to build.
I can see it now...a “suspect” finds one of these trackers on his car and smashes it to bits, only to be charged with destruction of police property.
I’m not sure I understand the reasoning of this case. The location of your car is public information. Even when you drive into your garage, your neighbors see it. Everyone on the street around you sees it.
Does this mean the police cannot trail a car without a search warrant? Seems to me you cannot distinguish the two situations. The only difference is expense. And that is not a constitutional basis for decision.