The article mentions that the EFF:
> ...asked the court to recognize, as the Supreme Court did in U.S. v Carpenter, that people have a constitutional right to privacy in their physical movements.
But SCOTUSblog's reporting of that decision makes it clear that [1]:
> Roberts also left open the possibility that law-enforcement officials might not need a warrant to obtain cell-site location records for a shorter period of time than the seven days at issue in Carpenter’s case – which might allow them to get information about where someone was on the day of a crime, for example.
There are two dimensions involved: who's being tracked, and how long it's been tracked. In Carpenter's case, someone was tracked for 7 days without a warrant, while in Almonor, it was only 6 hours. Additionally, the EFF post suggests that this was a much more targeted search (one for specific suspects only) than the one in Carpenter.
As much as I dislike the idea of warrantless phone tracking, since Roberts crossed over to vote with the liberals on the side of a narrow majority on Carpenter, there's a decent chance this might get overturned on appeal.
[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-ho...