The court makes a pretty bad argument here, and one that if it went to the supreme court, would get torn apart (regardless of how they ruled) : ""Moreover, if l

The court makes a pretty bad argument here, and one that if it went to the supreme court, would get torn apart (regardless of how they ruled) : ""Moreover, if law enforcement were required to engage in live surveillance without the aid of technology in this type of situation, then the advance of technology would one-sidedly give criminals the upper hand. The law cannot be that modern technological advances are off-limits to law enforcement when criminals may use them freely."" Except, nobody has argued it's off limits, instead, they argue that using that technology should require a warrant. The argument that criminals can use the technology freely is also pretty much a non-starter. The whole point of the 4th amendment is to say that law enforcement can't freely do searches even if others could. By ignoring this point, the court makes the opinion a lot weaker than it could have been.