we should review only for plain error. In response, Pineda-Moreno asserts that language in the government's response to his motion was broad enough to bring the argument to the court's attention, and we therefore should review the district court’s decision de novo. We need not resolve this dispute, however, as we conclude that by denying Pineda-Moreno’s motion to suppress, the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise. Thus, under either standard of review, we would reach the same result. 2 . We note that three slate supreme courts have concluded that the use of a tracking device is impermissible under their respective state constitutions. See People v. Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 433, 882 N.Y.S.2d 357, 909 N.E.2d 1195 (2009); State v. Jackson, 150 Wash.2d 251, 76 P.3d 217 (2003) (<HOLDING>); State v. Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 759 P.2d 1040
holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant holding that when acting pursuant to a valid warrant the police did not violate the fourth amendment by acting outside their jurisdiction in violation of state law holding under a state constitutional provision more protective than the fourth amendment that police may not use a mobile tracking device without a warrant holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under  1983 because it violates the fourth amendment holding in five separate opinions that  1983 claim based on persons arrest cannot be brought under substantive due process where more specific constitutional provision  fourth amendment  applies