I too don't agree with that ruling, and I suspect it'll be appealed
again and eventually overturned. Half their argument is that the cell phone "ping" is a public broadcast that can be tracked, and it kind of is, but the GPS data is not. it's protected under a service contract
with the cell provider, and the cops need to have a warrant to get it turned on without the owners approval. If they had used some method, say a physical sighting and a radio sniffer that could uniquely signature the phone, then tracked it, that would be a different story
and would fully fit what they are
arguing. But it's not.
I think they only reason they are upholding it is that they only used it to find him and he happened to be with the goods. They seemed to have enough evidence on him already, a proper warrant should not have
been an issue.
I'm not against wireless cams, but I don't see any benefit to public broadcast except at events. thre are certainly other security/safety issue with it, like having the whole world know you are alone at the