"The Solicitor General filed a petition with the Supreme Court about the growing dispute in the federal courts over warrantless locational tracking. There is a split among the appellate court about GPS tracking by police agencies. The petition appeals a decision from the DC Circuit which held that the warrantless tracking of a motor vehicle violates the Constitutional right against unlawful searches. Earlier, EPIC filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case that also held that a warrant is required for the use of a GPS tracking device. For more information, see EPIC – Commonwealth v. Connolly and EPIC – Locational Privacy," according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center's (EPIC) April 18 post.  The 9th Circuit apparently is on the side that says warrantless location tracking is ok.  In US v. Pineda Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010) DEA agents attached three different mobile tracking devices to the underside of Peneda's car on seven different occasions.  The court held, "The only information the agents obtained from the tracking devices was a log of the locations where Pineda-Moreno's car traveled, information the agents could have obtained by following the car." [BB]