United States v. Pineda-Moreno recognized the need for warrantless tracking of vehicles, but United States v. Maynard correctly recognized the advancement of technology; the abuses that happen with technology; and most importantly the privacy of an individual in a social world. The D.C. Circuit took into account the significance of the privacy of an individual that is revealed when a GPS monitors for the sole purpose of putting together the daily movements and activities of an individual. This is an example of the dragnet type law enforcement that the Court in Knotts did not address when limiting its decision to the facts of the case before it. The paper gives an overview of the two cases focusing on GPS surveillance and the Fourth Amendment.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/anna-karina_parker/1/