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 during one-day drive from Arizona to New York); State v. Sveum, 319 Wis.2d 498, 769 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 v. State, 178 Md.App. 428, 941 A.2d 1238 (2008) (<HOLDING>). * According to the former Chief of the LAPD,
holding that the use of a corset spring device was public although the use was by its nature not visible to the general public holding use of gps device to track suspect for 65 days was search holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony 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