That ruling did not consider whether a warrant is required, only that the attachment of the device constituted a "search" because the government was trespassing

That ruling did not consider whether a warrant is required, only that the attachment of the device constituted a "search" because the government was trespassing when they installed it (http://lippmannwouldroll.com/2012/01/28/what-the-supreme-courts-gps-case-actually-says/ http://lippmannwouldroll.com/2012/01/28/what-the-supreme-cou...).