State v. Bad, No. A11-13, 2011 WL 7033745 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2012) (review denied on Mar. 28, 2012).Jones was issued five days later on January 23, 2012, and does not apply to this case because a retroactivity analysis applies only to cases that were pending on direct review. Griffith, 479 U.S. at 328; United States v. Fenner, No. 06-211(1), 2012 WL 1657745, at *3 (D. Minn. May 11, 2012). Third, even if Jones did apply, which it does not, Petitioner likely would not have had adequate standing to challenge the lawfulness of the attachment of the GPS device because (1) he was driving a truck owned by his employer; (2) he used the truck for activities outside the scope of his employment (burglary); and (3) the GPS device was attached prior to Petitioner taking possession.