search and seizure

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Jones the law enforcement's installation of GPS devices on suspects' vehicles  are searches under the Fourth Amendment, the Second Circuit has reasoned '"Jones left open the question of whether the warrantless use of GPS devices would be 'reasonable—and thus lawful—under the Fourth Amendment [where] officers ha[ve] reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause' to conduct a search,'" according to The New York Law Journal. The GPS tracking of the defendants in the case before the Second Circuit was not done with delibrate, reckless or gross disregard for their Fourth Amendment rights and was done with reasonable reliance on court precedent before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones, The Journal also reports. So the panel decided the evidence related to the search was in good faith and didn't need to be excluded.
 

 Attorney Terrence P. Dwyer writes that there is still a question left open by the U.S. Supreme Court "relating to the extent of government use of GPS technology without a warrant, specifically about requirements when there is no physical trespass upon personal property." He writes that some courts are more protective of cell site locator information while others are not (CSLI "can be sought in one of two ways — either as historical cell site data that seeks past locator information, or as prospective cell site data which seeks real time, present data"). He also writes that it is likely the courts, not legislatures will decide the parameters of our privacy regarding cell phones locational data as there has been very few bills introduced to govern this subject area.