I scanned the opinion. In law there is something called Curtilage which is that area that surrounds a house, for example. A driveway can be considered within that curtilage if it is sequestered in some way such as by a fence or gate. Pineda's driveway was not sequestered. As the court found, anyone could traverse the driveway such as a paperboy or meter reader. Thus, there was no expectationof privacy in his driveway. The court also opined that the tracking device was attached to the vehicle's undercarriage where there is no expectationof privacy.

It's important to understand that an appellate court hears arguments between opposing sides regarding Constitutional issues - not evidence. From my scanning of the ruling, it's clear that Pineda's attorney didn't argue his case effectively. He based much of his argument on the wrong precedent which is a previous case in which the court ruled. I should also point out that the opinion is only applicable in the 9th circuit courts 9 state jurisdication which is mainly out west.