In Karo, a beeper was installed in a container which, at the time of installation, belonged to the Government. The Court held that the defendants had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the property at that time. The Court noted that the same would have been true had the property been in the possession of a consenting third party (an issue that had been left open in Knotts). However, in Katz v. United States, the Court held that the fourth amendment protects people, not places. The three general types of property to which beepers are most frequently applied include movable containers, vehicles and aircraft. The Court has held that searches of containers must be authorized by a warrant (the Federal appellate court has disagreed). However, it has not decided whether the installation of a beeper in or on a vehicle or aircraft constitutes a fourth amendment search. The Court must determine whether illegal installation of a beeper should result in suppression of evidence. The Court must also resolve questions concerning the appropriate standard for the issuance of a warrant, the satisfaction of the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment, the applicability of time requirements, and the jurisdiction of the beeper warrant. Included are 75 notes.