◆ SpookStack

to the property searched). We therefore join the district court and the parties in referring to the Jeep as being Jones's. 451 F.Supp.2d 71, 87 (2006) A. Was Use of GPS a Search?. For his part, Jones argues the use of the GPS device violated his "reasonable concurring), and was therefore a search subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, the Government agrees the Katz test applies here, but it argues we need not consider whether Jones's expectation of privacy was reasonable because that question was answered in United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), in which the Supreme Court held the use of a beeper device to aid in tracking a suspect to his drug lab was not a search. As explained below, we hold Knotts does not govern this case and the police action was a search because it defeated Jones's reasonable expectation of privacy. We then turn to the Government's claim our holding necessarily implicates prolonged visual surveillance. 1. Knotts is not controlling. *8 The Government argues this case falls squarely within the holding in Knotts that "[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable that case the police had planted a beeper in a five-gallon container of chemicals before it. was purchased by one of Knotts's co-conspirators; monitoring the progress of the car carrying the beeper, the police followed the container as it was driven from the "place of. purchase, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to [Knotts's] secluded cabin near Shell Lake, Wisconsin,' 460 U.S. at 277, a trip of about 100 miles. Because the co-conspirator, by driving on public roads, "voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look"' his progress and route, he could not reasonably expect privacy in *the fact of his final destination." Id. at 281.. The Court explicitly distinguished between the limited information discovered by use of the beeper-movements during a discrete journey-and more comprehensive or sustained. monitoring of the sort at issue in this case. Id. at 283 (noting "limited use which the government made of the signals from this particular beeper'); see also id. at 284-85 ("nothing in this record indicates that the beeper signal was received or relied upon after it had indicated that the [container] had ended its automotive journey at rest on respondent's premises in rural Wisconsin'). Most important for the present case, the Court specifically reserved the question whether a warrant would be required in a case involving "twenty-four hour surveillance," stating if such dragnet-type law enforcement practices as respondent envisions should eventually occur, there will be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional principles may be applicable. 10 TTUOTD 007094