Therefore, the GPS is a technological improvement on a technique that is constitutional without a warrant.
By contrast, if they had invented an X-Ray machine that could look into cars from afar, that would be a technological improvement on a technique that is unconstitutional unless a warrant is obtained.
Am I missing something?
The GPS can provide more than what can be obtained with a tail.
Plus there is the “physical intrusion in attaching the device”.
Your analogy is accurate, but, the result of that line of reasoning is that the police could monitor the movements of anyone, at any time, without a warrant - for as long as they want.
No chance for abuse there.
the govt could save a lot of money if it just posted cameras in all our houses with voice recorders...just think how much info they could get without all that messy police work...
Yes you are missing the fact that the GPS tracking is cheap and easy and, without a need for a warrant, police will use it in many more cases than they would use an officer tailing a car. When they start to use it a lot, they will start to use it on people against whom they have no case just to see what turns up. This is at the cost of freedom from unreasonable search.