Turns out you do need a warrant, even when using the latest tech, to monitor a suspect. So says the Supreme Court:
http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleFriendlyLTN.jsp?id=1202539614010
So say we all:
Supreme Court: Warrants needed in GPS tracking
What impact will this really have? Why do they even bother with stuff like this when they have so many, and much easier, options for tracking people? It isn’t that difficult to get a person’s cell phone location information from Verizon, T-Mobile, Google, Facebook, probably in many cases without a warrant. And if they can’t get that, with different law enforcment agencies buying UAV’s[1] they can still track people visually and very stealthily.
It isn’t a bad ruling, but ultimately I think it’s just a little pointless.
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles#U.S._domestic_use
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211
http://www.officer.com/news/10443874/new-police-drone-in-texas-could-carry-weapons
I agree with you Scooter. It is a pretty small victory. Still, it might set some kind of a precedent for future challenges against the “Big Terrorism” industry.