The title of this post pretty much says it all. I agree with Tom Goldstein’s analysis on SCOTUSblog where he explains why the United States Supreme Court didn’t hold in United States v. Jones that law enforcement must get a warrant before installing and/or using a GPS device to monitor a criminal suspect.
So to sum up, here is what I think it is fair to conclude about Jones. It holds that installing a GPS device is a search that may or may not require a warrant, and it strongly suggests that long-term monitoring of that device will require a warrant. But the Court does not hold that installing the device requires a warrant, and in fact the tea leaves suggest it would reject that conclusion if the device is only going to be monitored for a day or two.
There you have it. Tom gets it right. The media get it wrong.