In U.S. v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir) the officers "placed two magnetized tracking devices on the undercarriage of the" defendant's vehicle ( id. at p. 1123) "while it was parked in his driveway." ( Id. at p. 1126.) The defendant conceded that the vehicle "was outside the curtilage." (Ibid.) In that case, the U.S. Forest Service discovered marijuana plants being grown in the Kootenay National Forest. As a result of placing surveillance cameras in the area they photographed defendant and his truck. After tracing the truck's registration to defendant's residence, the officers went there and placed a magnetized GPS device and a magnetized beeper transmitter to the undercarriage of defendant's truck while it was parked in defendant's driveway. Thereafter, defendant harvested the marijuana and was tracked by the GPS/Beeper back to his residence where he was arrested. The court assumed for the sake of argument "that the officers committed a trespass in walking into McIver's open driveway" (ibid.), but concluded that their action was not a search. The court reasoned that " 'the undercarriage is part of the car's exterior, and as such, is not afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy.' " (Id. at p. 1127.) There was no evidence that the defendant intended to shield the vehicle's undercarriage from inspection by others. (Ibid.) The court also concluded that the placement of the tracking devices was not a seizure of the defendant's vehicle, because it did not interfere with his possessory interests. (McIver, supra, 186 F.3d 1119, 1127.) In sustaining defendant's conviction, the Court held that defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the undercarriage of his truck and the defendant did not demonstrate that he intended to shield the undercarriage from inspection by others. They further held that the placement of the GPS/Beeper was not a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment as there was no evidence that the device deprived defendant of dominion and control over his vehicle or that the presence of the device caused damage to the vehicle's electronic components. Regarding the entry into the driveway, the Court held that defendant did not have legitimate expectation of privacy therein since the driveway was open to observation of persons passing by and was not enclosed by a fence and gate. The court further held that the "existence of a physical trespass is only marginally relevant to the question of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated, however, for an actual trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a constitutional violation" (186 F.3d at 1127.)