◆ SpookStack

Id. at 283-84. reserved the Fourth Amendment question that would be raised by mass surveillance, not the question raised by prolonged surveillance of a single individual, that is not what happened. In reserving the "dragnet' question, the Court was not only addressing but in part actually quoting the defendant's argument that, if a warrant is not required, then. prolonged "twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country will be possible whether prolonged "twenty-four hour surveillance" was a search by limiting its holding to the facts of the case before it, as to which it stated *the reality hardly suggests abuse.' Id. at 283 (internal quotation marks deleted). FN* Indeed, the quoted section of the respondent's brief envisions a case remarkably. similar to the one before us: We respectfully submit that the Court should remain mindful that should it adopt the result maintained by the government, twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country will be possible, without judicial knowledge or supervision. Without the limitations imposed by the warrant requirement itself, and the terms of any warrant which is issued, any person or residence could be monitored at any time and for any length of time. Should a beeper be installed in a container of property which is not contraband, as here, it would enable authorities to determine a citizen's location at any time without knowing whether his travels are for legitimate or illegitimate purposes, should the container be moved. A beeper thus would turn a person into a broadcaster of his own affairs and travels, without his knowledge or consent, for as long as the government may wish to use him where no warrant places a limit on surveillance. To allow warrantless beeper monitoring, particularly under the standard urged by the government here : ("reasonable suspicion'), would allow virtually limitless intrusion into the affairs of private citizens. Br. of Resp. at 9-10 (No. 81-1802). In short, Knotts held only that "[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another, id. at 281, not that such a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements whatsoever, world without end, as the Government would have it. The Fifth Circuit likewise has recognized the limited scope of the holding in Knotts, see United States v. Butts, 729 F.2d 1514, 1518 n.4 (1984) ("As did the Supreme Court in Knotts, we pretermit any ruling on worst-case situations that may involve persistent, extended, or unlimited violations of a warrant's terms'), as has the New York Court of Appeals, see People y. Weaver. 12 N.Y.3d 433, 440-44 (2009) ( Knotts involved a "single trip"' and Court "pointedly acknowledged and reserved for another day the question of whether a Fourth Amendment issue would be posed if twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country [were] possible' "). See also Renee McDonald Hutchins, Tied Up in Knotts? GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment, 419 UCLA L.Rev. 409, 457 (2007) ("According to the [Supreme] Court, its decision [in Knotts ] should not be read 11 TTUOTD 007092