The Supreme Court has weighed in on this with a little more nuance in their decision in Katz v. United States:
“What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”
This “lack of privacy in public” absolutism would mean that there would never be certiorari granted for these types of cases in the first place.
Reductionist at best, IMO
See also United States v Jones, Carpenter v United States
“What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”
This “lack of privacy in public” absolutism would mean that there would never be certiorari granted for these types of cases in the first place.
Reductionist at best, IMO
See also United States v Jones, Carpenter v United States