context: The Court explicitly distinguished between the limited information discovered by use of the beeper -- movements during a discrete journey -- and more comprehensive or sustained monitoring of the sort at issue in this case.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: "nothing in this record indicates that the beeper signal was received or relied upon after it had indicated that the [container] had ended its automotive journey at rest on respondent's premises in rural Wisconsin"
citation_a.sentence: Id. at 283, 103 S.Ct. 1081 (noting “limited use which the government made of the signals from this particular beeper”); see also id. at 284-85, 103 S.Ct. 1081 (“nothing in this record indicates that the beeper signal was received or relied upon after it had indicated that the [container] had ended its automotive journey at rest on respondent’s premises in rural Wisconsin”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: noting "limited use which the government made of the signals from this particular beeper"
citation_b.sentence: Id. at 283, 103 S.Ct. 1081 (noting “limited use which the government made of the signals from this particular beeper”); see also id. at 284-85, 103 S.Ct. 1081 (“nothing in this record indicates that the beeper signal was received or relied upon after it had indicated that the [container] had ended its automotive journey at rest on respondent’s premises in rural Wisconsin”).