Over twenty years ago, Minnesota law enforcement plants a beeper inside a container of chloroform and follows behind monitoring the beeps as a suspect drives to a remote Wisconsin cabin. In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court says they have no problem with this police trick concluding: “Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case.” Ain't technology wonderful?
UNITED STATES v. KNOTTS, 460 U.S. 276 (1983): The governmental surveillance conducted by means of the beeper in this case amounted principally to the following of an automobile on public streets and highways. We have commented more than once on the diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile. … did monitoring the beeper signals complained of by respondent invade any legitimate expectation of privacy on his part? For the reasons previously stated, we hold it did not. Since it did not, there was neither a "search" nor a "seizure" within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment.
GPS spying on car need no warrant: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that police can place a GPS tracking unit on a suspect's car without obtaining a search warrant. In US v Garcia (2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2272), decided Feb. 2, Judge Richard Posner found that such a device was a mere "augmentation" of police officers' natural ability to follow a car.