I can't imagine how the Justice Sotomayor could have been any more clear in this issue:<p><pre><code> I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed
to some member of the public for a limited purpose is,
for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.
[citations omitted]
Resolution of these difficult questions in this case is unnecessary,
however, because the Government's physical intrusion on Jones' Jeep
supplies a narrower basis for decision.
</code></pre>
<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf</a><p>When Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan feel surveillance is so obviously unconstitutional as to provide an even narrower basis than <i>actual trespassing</i>, and Sotomayor writes a separate opinion for the sole purpose of conveying she'd be the 4th vote, I find it hard to imagine how any judge could uphold this surveillance in good faith.