two-part Katz test, an individual must demonstrate both a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search, and that society is prepared to accept that expectation as objectively reasonable. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). The third-party doctrine applies when someone voluntarily disclosed information to a third party; an expectation of privacy in such information fails the objectively reasonable prong. See Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-44, 99 S.Ct. 2577; see, e.g., U.S. v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 511-12 (11th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court has applied the third-party doctrine to permit electronic tracking of certain information without a warrant, See U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 285, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 75 L.Ed.2d 55 (1983) (<HOLDING>); but see U.S. v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404, 132
holding that the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rules are not implicated by a private search holding that officers installation prior to purchase of a beeper in a barrel purchased by one of the codefendants and the officers subsequent monitoring of the signals from that beeper as the  codefendant transported it by vehicle to its final destination did not constitute a fourth amendment search because a cars movements are public information holding the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the lessee driver of a vehicle had knowingly transported a handgun recovered from the trunk of the vehicle in question holding that the defendant who stood by and watched as the officers searched the vehicle consented to a search during which officers checked under a cars seat looked in the cars glove compartment and removed a speaker by unscrewing it from a panel recognizing private damage action for fourth amendment violations by federal officers