◆ SpookStack

FN* One federal district court and two state courts have also held use of a GPS device is not per se a search, but none was presented with the argument that prolonged use of a GPS device to track an individual's movements is meaningfully different from short-term. surveillance. See United States v. Moran, 349 F.Supp.2d 425, 467-68 (N.D.N.Y.2005) (police used GPs device to track defendant auring one-day drive from Arizona to New York); State v. Sveum, 269 N.W.2d 53, 59 (Wis.Ct.App.2009) ("Sveum implicitly concedes that ... using [a GPS device] to monitor public travel does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. He contends, however, that because the GPS device permitted the police to monitor the location of his car while it was in his garage ... all of the information obtained from the GPS device should have been suppressed.'); Stone y.. State, 941 A.2d 1238 (Md.2008) (holding, in light of Knotts, that lower court "did not abuse its discretion in cutting short testimony' about use of GPS device; appellant did not. cite Knotts in his briefs or affirmatively argue use of device was a search). 4. Visual surveillance distinguished The Government would have us abjure this conclusion on the ground that "[Jones's] argument logically would prohibit even visual surveillance of persons or vehicles located in public places and exposed to public view, which clearly is not the law." We have already explained why Jones's argument does not "logically ... prohibit' much visual surveillance: Surveillance that reveals only what is already exposed to the public-such as 285. Regarding visual surveillance so prolonged it reveals information not exposed to the public, we note preliminarily that the Government points to not a single actual example of visual surveillance that will be affected by our holding the use of the GPS in this case was a search. No doubt the reason is that practical considerations prevent visual require all the time and expense of several police officers, while comparable. photographic surveillance would require a net of video cameras so dense and so widespread as to catch a person's every movement, plus the manpower to piece the photographs together. Of course, as this case and some of the GPS cases in other courts illustrate, e.g., Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d at 447, 459 (holding use of GPS device to track suspect for 65 days was search); Jackson, 76 P.3d 261-62 (holding use of GPS device to track suspect for two and one-half weeks was search), prolonged GPS monitoring is not similarly constrained. On the contrary, the marginal cost of an additional day-or week, or month-of GPS monitoring is effectively zero. Nor, apparently, is the fixed cost of installing a GPS device significant; the Los Angeles Police Department can now affix a practical reasons, and not by virtue of its sophistication or novelty, the advent of GPS technology has occasioned a heretofore unknown type of intrusion into an ordinarily and hitherto private enclave. FN* According to the former Chief of the LAPD, keeping a suspect under "constant and close surveillance"' is "not only more costly than any police department can afford, but in 20 007101 TTLOTC