That's definitely a "citation needed" statement.
In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) the Court upheld mandatory drug testing for railway employees involved in accidents or safety violations despite no probable cause or individualized suspicion.
In Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) the Court upheld sobriety check points in which all cars are briefly stopped for questioning and observation. There's no individualized suspicion there. See also the cases involving border patrol checkpoints. A checkpoint 50 miles from the border doesn't involve any individualized suspicion.
Individualized suspicion is required I believe to target an individual, but hasn't targeting a place where a crime has been committed to get more information to try to figure what individuals might be involved been standard, uncontroversial, police procedure in the United States for hundreds of years?
E.g., if a clearly murdered body is found in a maid's closet at a hotel when the maids go to start their shift in the morning police are going to get a warrant to get the list of all staff and guests that were known to be in the hotel between the time the closet was last known to be dead body free and the time the body was discovered.
That seems at least somewhat similar to a geofence warrant and has been pretty normal since basically forever.