In U.S. v. Jones, a majority of Supreme Court justices seemed to agree with the proposition that prolonged technological surveillance can constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment even if the person’s actions were observable to the public.  Thus, in that case, five justices opined that use of a GPS device to track the location of a criminal suspect for four weeks would have constituted a search even if the tracking did not require a physical intrusion into the suspect’s property.  But a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit took a very different stance in U.S. v. Houston, holding that use of a video camera atop a public utility pole to surveil the defendant’s actions on private property for ten weeks did not constitute a search because the defendant’s actions would have been visible to anyone passing by on the public road.  The court’s rather unpersuasive distinguishing of Jones makes it a good potential candidate for Supreme Court review.