Surveillance by its definition is to watch without interacting. Tapping property with a device differentiates this. You can't "bug" a house with a listening device, but by this argument, bugging your phone would be acceptable.
Surveillance is not equal to tracking. Tracking is an invasion of privacy, and when your constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." this means that when someone attaches something to your property, they overstep their bounds.
Let's say that instead of a small device, imagine the technology was such that they couldn't hide it. Would it be used? No. They don't want you to know they're doing it. When the police act in secrecy, the only protection citizens have is that an impartial jurist must weigh the facts and decide whether to issue a warrant or not.
Without that type of check, right now, there's no reason YOUR car can't be tagged. Or all of our cars. Police do not have that right, do they?
It begs the question; if police can do something without a warrant, would it be ok if they did it to a thousand people? To you? Your mom? Your kid? And when do they start using this for tax-raising crimes such as speeding and parking violations? Where does it stop if a warrant isn't needed?
