Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit's U.S. v. Jones decision and asked the parties to brief the following issue: "Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent." See The next big privacy case; see also my electronic surveillance posts. Maybe the Fourth Amendment won't be as obsolete as Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and his clerk Stephanie Grace think, "Remember what the Fourth Amendment protects? No? Just as well."
As electronic surveillance and Fourth Amendment scholar Professor Orin Kerr notes, the Court's cert grant is particularly interesting because it framed the question under review in a way that includes whether just the warrantless installation of a GPS tracking device (in contrast to prolonged GPS tracking) may violate the Fourth Amendment--an issue that the lower courts have universally rejected but that Prof. Kerr believes deserves further scrutiny.
More recent electronic surveillance related pieces I found interesting:
"Free To Search and Seize," David K. Shipler, NY Times Op-Ed, 6/22/11
"Don't Tread on my Cloud," Leslie Harris, Huffington Post, 6/20/11
"Bill to Require Warrant for Location Tracking Introduced in Congress," Talk Left, 6/19/11
