by following the ear. “Insofar as [Pineda-Moreno’s] complaint appears to be simply that scientific devices such as the [tracking devices] enabled the police to be more effective in detecting crime, it simply has no constitutional foundation. We have never equated police efficiency with unconstitutionality and decline to do so now.” Knotts, 460 U.S. at 284, 103 S.Ct. 1081. We conclude that the police did not conduct an impermissible search of Pineda-Moreno’s car by monitoring its location with mobile tracking devices. IV For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . The parties dispute the standard of review applicable to this claim. The government contends that Pineda-Moreno failed to raise this argument before the district court and accord 1988) (<HOLDING>). But see Osburn v. State, 118 Nev. 323, 44
holding that a conflict of interest on the part of the prosecution violates the due process clause of the virginia constitution holding that using a track ing device without a warrant or obviating exigency violates the state constitution recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution holding that definition of seizure under state constitution differs from that under us constitution recognizing exception under state constitution