I would like to share research and thoughts concerning the cited issue. This issue will likely be ripe for the trial court within the next 60 days.

Need more facts. Art. 18.21, Sec. 14 is fairly specific on what you need for a GPS tracking device. Email me, if you like.

The concept is sound. Exigent circumstances is a long standing exception to the warrant requirement. Now, proving up exigent circumstances that are sufficient to allow the particular use might be difficult. One example I can think of--dangerous, high speed chase, and officers choose to somehow attach a GPS, back off, and wait for knucklehead to stop running. Another, people acting very weird during missing person case, especially if it is a missing child or special needs person. Finally, officer may have probable cause and have car at hand, but not yet have the warrant. Exigent circumstances would seem to allow attaching the device then getting the warrant, so that you avoid the situation of coming back with warrant and device but the car is long gone... The last example is something that bothered me about Jones--after all, you can search an auto (or a carriage) without warrant if you have probable cause, but the Jones majorities (there were two) did not discuss that. It makes no sense to me that I can take your car to pieces with PC but no warrant, but I cannot track it without a warrant.

My concern is the installation of a gps under EXIGENT circumstances where there is no time to procure the consent of a judge. Art 18.21(14)a) appears to specifically state, 'a district judge may.....'. My focus is on what, if any, lawful authority does a described law enforcement agent have to insert a gps on the superstructure of a mobile vehicle such as a car, aircraft, 4 wheeler, etc w/o procuring judicial pre-approval.
Also, is the Texas Constitution more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution?