Is GPS tracking too '1984'?

[Commentary] Should the police be allowed to affix an electronic tracking device to a suspect's car without a warrant and follow his every movement for a month? That was the question at an oral argument at the Supreme Court.

The justices expressed unease with such pervasive surveillance, with one comparing it to George Orwell's "1984." Their misgivings reflect a sense on the part of many Americans, including this editorial board, that there's something creepy about round-the-clock electronic surveillance. But when they decide the case of Antoine Jones, a suspected drug dealer who was arrested after being monitored by a global positioning system, they will have to base any decision in Jones' favor not on creepiness but on the Constitution. Fortunately, that document, interpreted in light of technological advances, supports a ruling that GPS surveillance without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. A ruling for the defendant wouldn't require an end to GPS tracking. All it would mean is that police would have to obtain a warrant before making use of a device that the framers of the 4th Amendment never could have conceived of.