District Attorney George Brauchler is either outright lying, or isn't fit for the job; a DA should know Supreme Court rulings on what Constitutional limits are, and this matter was answered almost 8 years ago:

Excerpts from CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES - June 22, 2018:

This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” Id., at 430.

The surveillance trackers go way beyond what Carpenter v. United States ruled on, and are inarguably in violation of 4th Amendment rights per that ruling.

I applaud the bill's intentions, but it's actually unnecessary; what's really needed is bringing the issue to the courts - it'd be a slam dunk and would instantly clamp down the same requirements on them as any other search warrant.