Here's another decision that seems obviously right.
Defendant steals a purse with a smartphone in it. The smartphone has a GPS in it (like many such phones), and the owner consents to have Sprint "ping" it, which reveals its location: in the possession of defendant. Defendant moves to suppress, claiming a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
But there was no trespass or intrusion by the police. You can't have a subjectively reasonable privacy interest in stuff you just stole. And the only person with a legitimate privacy interest -- the owner -- consented to the search.
Good police work. Easy case. Right result.