◆ SpookStack

just as the Supreme Court in Knotts reserved the lawfulness of prolonged beeper surveillance, we reserve the lawfulness of prolonged visual surveillance. B. Was the Search Reasonabie Nonetneiess?. A search conducted without a warrant is "per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz, 389 U.S. at 357. Here, because the police installed the GPS device on can be upheld as a reasonable application of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Under that exception, "[i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment ... permits police to search the vehicle without more." Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 (1996) FN* The police had obtained a warrant to install the GPS device in D .C. only, but it had expired before they installed it-which they did in Maryland. When challenged in the district court, the Government "conceded ... the violations' of the court's order, "confine[d] its arguments to the issue of whether or not a court order was required[,] and assert[ed] that it was not." Government's Omnibus Response to Defendant's Legal Motions. *17 As Jones points out, this argument is doubly off the mark. First, the Government did not raise it below. See Bryant y. Gates, 532 F.3d 888, 898 (D.C.Cir.2008) (argument not made in district court is forfeited). Second, the automobile exception permits the police to search a car without a warrant if they have reason to believe it contains contraband; the exception does not authorize them to install a tracking device on a car without the approval of a neutral magistrate. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U .S. 648, 662- 63 (1979) ("Were the individual subject to unfettered governmental intrusion every time he entered his automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed"). C. Was the Error Harmless? Finally, the Government argues in a terse and conclusory few lines that the district court's error in admitting evidence obtained by use of the GPS device was harmless. "The beneficiary of a constitutional error [must prove] beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). According to the Government, "Overwhelming evidence implicated [Jones] in the drug-distribution conspiracy." Overwhelming evidence certainly showed there was a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute drugs based out of 9508 Potomac Drive, Ft. Washington, Maryland, where police found $850,000 in cash, 97 kilograms of cocaine, and one kilogram of cocaine base. The evidence linking Jones to that conspiracy, however, was not strong, let alone overwhelming.. 22 TTUOTD 007103