This ruling doesn't even have anything to do with planting a tracking device. It is in regards to an individual who has been convicted of multiple sexual offences who has served his time and is being required by the State of North Carolina to wear a GPS anklet for the rest of his life. He challenged that on 4th amendment grounds. NC argued successfully (at the state level) that this requirement is not a search. The SCOTUS disagreed and sent the case back to NC.
Combative much? Let me rearrange your words so you can see how it relates to my original point, and you tell me how I did it wrong, and then I'll let you deal with the fact that you're chasing your own tail while barking at me...
NC argued [that] wear[ing] a GPS anklet
The SCOTUS disagreed
First line of the article:
If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Jeez, what as that about reading the article again?