"The devices in this case were in place for approximately 2.5 weeks," Justice Madsen wrote. "It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson."
It seems like the suspicions of the police were well founded. No unreasonable force or coercion was applied. It seems strange that the courts won't let the police benefit from the use of technology to do their work. It looks like the ACLU and its hack supporters on the bench are hard at work making the work of criminals safe.
"...might return to the scene of the crime." Isn't that what he did?
Actually, I agree, there should be a warrant, the same as for wire taps, and for the same reasons.
However, I have never agreed with the idea that a murderer should escape justice because of a procedural mistake. The two should be separate. If there is evidence of a person's guilt, that evidence should be admitted.
If the evidence was secured illegaly, then the person responsible should face some sort of punishment.
How many innocent people have died at the hands of criminals that have been allowed to walk free, when the evidence against them was "thrown out"?
Nah, I don't think so. I think it's just a more efficient way of tailing someone. Strange that something completely legal is considered unconstitutional when done in a more reliable manner. I'm surprised the court bought the argument, but then I'm not familiar with Washington or its constitution. I wonder what the SCOTUS would rule in federal case vs. the 4th amendment.