How will Court decide the Police GPS tool and 4th Amendment

In a Washington Post article today, there was a story about how police used GPS to catch a rapist.

Basically they first used tried and true methods when a reported series of
rapes occurred and concentrated their efforts on area convicted sex offenders;
next probably came some software or other technology that they do
not wish to discuss, understandably.

When they had narrowed the list, the police put a tracking device
on the suspect's van and his actions led to his arrest.

Odds are that his was not the only device used, but that is not mentioned.

Questions will undoubtedly be raised about whether these new methods
violate the 4th Amendment. I feel confident in saying NO.

I say this because tracking devices have passed Court approval in the past.
[United States v. Knotts 460 U.S. 276 (1983)]
The reasoning is that there is no, or should be no, expectation of privacy
when you are traveling in a vehicle which is on the open road and
visible to other motor vehicles as well as planes flying overhead.

Washington State Supreme Court on September 11, 2003, had ruled that
police must first obtain a warrant before attaching the device,
but that only applies to the state.

In February 2007, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a
warrant was not need. "The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable
search and seizure, but the judges ruled that the placement of a GPS
tracking device without the suspect’s knowledge, does not qualify as a search of his car."

It is important to note that other circuits have split on this issue, so it may well be an
issue that the Court decides in order that the law is established and not subject to specific
locality.

As technology moves forward, the criminal justice system will also,
so long as money for the newer technology is forthcoming.

I think it is a good thing; how about you?