This sounds like it should be a clear violation of your rights. The cops would probably argue that it's little different than following you with a helicopter or a squad car - they don't need warrants to do that. And it's an interesting point. This isn't the same as bugging your car, that would need a warrant. Still, this feels different to me than simply following someone with a car. In this case they need to put something on my person, or on my car which is akin to my person, I would argue. It's a fascinating case. More from HuffPost:
The justices appear poised to go big or go home when it comes to protecting privacy rights against digital intrusion.Any thoughts? Is this creepy, or is it just like following someone with a squad car or a helicopter?
Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner in Washington, D.C., is challenging his conviction for drug trafficking, asserting that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights when, without a valid warrant or his consent, officers placed a GPS device on his car to track his movements on public streets. In taking United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court signaled its interest in seriously revisiting -- and , after almost three decades -- the question of whether advances in technology alter an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.
