In the majority opinion, even though it specifically notes its decision is narrow to this case, the requirement of a warrant is based on a more general test. 1

In the majority opinion, even though it specifically notes its decision is narrow to this case, the requirement of a warrant is based on a more general test. 1) Does the individual have a reasonable and historically legal expectation of privacy over the information in question? (In this case, detailed location data and yes) 2) If the information is stored with a third party, does the user "affirmatively" turn over that information, or is it collected with or without their knowledge? (In this case, cell location data is the latter) 3) Is the data "detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled" (this from Jones)? 4) Cell phones are "'such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life' that carrying one is indispensable to participation in modern society". This seems like a pretty positive expansion of digital privacy rights re: government searches. Specifically, cementing the Jones decision about pervasiveness and ease-of-dragnetting being a factor is good law. As the reasoning is fairly clear and straightforward, one would hope the court would follow for similar devices (e.g. car GPS data or voice assistants).