"When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the ******* irony in that." - Justin Halpern
Okay, but if you read under the section labaled, "Advancing technology and the Fourth Amendment," you'll find this (my bold):
So justices are finding a 4th amendment violation because of the duration, not the means. Lastly, we find this (my bold):Thus, in cases where police have not used a “physical intrusion” to install a GPS device, one’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” may depend on the length of surveillance. And it may depend on the wealth of data that police can acquire through GPS monitoring.
Four justices agreed that police violated Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights, not because of a physical intrusion, but because the monitoring went on too long.
Alito’s concurrence noted that the line was surely crossed before the four-week mark, but other cases may be different. “[S]hort term monitoring of a person’s movements on public streets accords with expectations of privacy that our society has recognized as reasonable,” Alito wrote, suggesting that warrantless GPS monitoring may be reasonable in certain cases.