In August, Antoine was convicted of conspiring to sell drugs, but he appealed to have his conviction overturned. Antoine was arrested after FBI and police linked him to a stash house, which had more than $1 million in cash and 100 kilos of cocaine. However, the police would likely have never found that stash house if they hadn't attached a GPS tracking device to Antoine's car.

Not only did police attach a tracking unit to his car, but they did so without a search warrant, and they monitored the car for a month. It was a celebrated drug trial, and Antoine was sentenced to life in prison.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court recently overturned the decision, and the justices agreed that prosecutors violated Antoine's rights by attaching a GPS to his car. More importantly, the Supreme Court also ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant to use GPS devices to track criminal suspects.

The ruling is a great step, but is it enough? The Supreme Court focused more on the physical attachment of the GPS device than on the bigger issue at hand. Physically attaching a GPS device is just one of the numerous technological advancements available.

One justice wrote, "In the course of carrying out mundane tasks, Americans disclose the phone numbers they dial, the URLs they visit, the books, groceries and medications they purchase." Another justice added that electronic surveillance may be an "unconstitutional invasion of privacy" even if no one physically trespassed on another person's property.

As technology continues to spiral forward, can we expect more protection of our privacy? Without it, law enforcement may continually inch into our lives.

Source: The Washington Post, "Supreme Court: Warrants needed in GPS tracking," Robert Barnes, Jan. 23, 2012