I can't be the only one who finds this disturbing. I have no issue with the tracking devices or their use. What I find very concerning is that they do not require a warrant and there is no oversight as to their usage.
Here is the issue: Whether the Constitution allows police to put a tracking device on a car without either a warrant or the owner's permission; and whether the Constitution is violated when police use the tracking device to keep track of the car's whereabouts.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
People are arguing that putting a tracking device on a car constitutes a search.
Or by tracking everywhere you go and correlating that with tracks of other known suspects and then extending that to tracking people that you travel near they are approaching "unreasonable search and invasion of privacy".
For example you can hardly object to the police office outside the bank seeing your car at the scene and radioing that in - but that's different to having a police officer follow you around 24x7 and asking the name and address of everyone you speak to.
That would remove any concern over civil liberties
Also, with that level of snark, I have to ask, what do you propose as an alternative?
Then they will spend all their time and effort fighting each other for funding jurisdiction and media spotlight that they leave the innocent bystanders alone.
Of course they wont catch any criminals - but no plan is perfect.