Leaving aside the particulars of this case since all we've heard so far is what his lawyers are saying happened, the troubling issue here is that somehow attach

Leaving aside the particulars of this case since all we've heard so far is what his lawyers are saying happened, the troubling issue here is that somehow attaching a GPS device is an action that does not require a warrant. I can accept the argument that it doesn't gather information that couldn't be gathered by other warrantless activity such as following him with agents. But it also MUST require that they entered the personal property of his car. You can't search a car without consent or a warrant, why can you enter it without either?