> You're presupposing there's a valid argument for the other side.

How about this part of the amendment?

> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated"

Isn't treating people like suspects (investigating them, searching their belongings, tracking them, etc.) merely because a third party claimed (and of course GPS is never inaccurate) that they passed within some vague proximity of a crime scene a violation of their security in their persons? Do you really have reasonable suspicion that every individual among the dozens (or more) you dragged into your search may have committed a crime if it's clear the others are there for unrelated reasons?