The court's ruling could have a far-reaching impact on warrantless GPS tracking practices, which critics contend is a violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The case has drawn widespread interest as the Yale Law School, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Constitution Project, the Cato Institute and several other groups have filed amicus briefs arguing against warrantless GPS tracking. Roger Easton, the principal inventor of GPS technology, also filed a brief arguing opposing warrantless tracking.

"If the Supreme Court were to rule against warrants for GPS tracking, the state of Pennsylvania could, for example, decide tomorrow that all license plates would be issued with a GPS monitor," warned Norman Sadeh, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, in a statement of the university's home page.

"It's actually economically practical today," said Sadeh who contributed to a brief filed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a public interest group.

The case involves Antoine Jones of Washington, D.C., who was convicted in 2008 and sentenced to life in prison for possessing and conspiring to distribute more than 50 kilograms of cocaine.