A 2-year-old Supreme Court decision has caused more confusion than clarity on how police may track the whereabouts of criminal suspects, illustrating how hard it is for the slow-moving judicial system to keep up with the light speed of technology. Alito, wrote that technological change can alter the public’s expectation of privacy and that lawmakers may be better suited than judges to account for the changes.

Police and judges also are wrestling with the privacy implications of other modern forms of surveillance. In Washington state, for example, privacy advocates are arguing that the Jones case requires a court to throw out warrantless video surveillance captured by a stationary camera left by police for a month outside a defendant?s house in a drugs and weapons case.

All these issues are ?begging and screaming for clarity and simplicity,? said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

In one way or another, the questions will likely come before the Supreme Court again, said Brian Hauss, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer. Police should have clear rules that apply across multiple forms of technology, he said.

?Right now, they?re operating in an area of total confusion without significant judicial checks on their authority.?