Actually, this was not a “libtard” panel, and, actually, it is a pretty sound decision. You can read the opinion for yourself on the DC Circuit website at the following link:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp
The case is US v. Maynard, No. 08-3030, and was issued on August 6, 2010.
First, there were two defendants from the same drug crimes. Maynard’s conviction was affirmed; Jones’ conviction was reversed.
Second, the panel is far from a bunch of egg sucking liberal dogs. It consisted of Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Ronald Reagan appointee (remember him, he was nominated for the Supreme Court, but had to withdraw when it was found out that he smoked a little pot with students while a law professor at Harvard); Thomas B. Griffith, a Bush 43 appointee and former law professor at BYU; and David S. Tatel, a Clinton appointee but a pretty neat guy (he is blind but was a marathon runner in his younger days; he came to the court from the same place as John Roberts—a partnership at the DC firm once known as Hogan and Hartson). Ginsburg and Griffith are conservatives; Tatel has struck me as a fairly sane and rational judge (I am a member of the DC Circuit Bar and have argued cases in front of Ginsburg and Tatel).
I think the concept of requiring the government to get a warrant before attaching a GPS unit to your car is sound; they’ve got no business engaging in warrantless tracking (which is in essence a search) without a warrant. This is a different concept from hot pursuit.
Beyond the attachment of the device, this does not differ markedly from actual physical surveillance of the suspect, but I can understand how the court thought that was over the top. I wonder why they did not get a warrant? Clearly there was preparation time for this operation to attach the device.