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) :
&quot;&quot;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.&quot;&quot;<p>Except, nobody has argued  it&#x27;s off limits, instead, they argue <i>that using that technology should require a warrant</i>.    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&#x27;t freely do searches even if others could.<p>By ignoring this point, the court makes the opinion a <i>lot</i> weaker than it could have been.