Well it is a piece of it, granted, but you're taking it woefully out of context. He went on at some length (linked) but the just of it is..

1) The bit you mentioned, but it was posited as a question not a declarative judgement. Specifically whether there is any reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to information shared with a 3rd party (The defendant's location as sent to the cell tower). He found the whole thing to be unsatisfying.

2) Wondering what, exactly, defines a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in the first place, and mooning on about how nice it would be if a legislature were to define such a thing in more concrete terms.

3) The crux of his objection seems to be (and I ain't no lawyer) that he's not entirely sure that cell tower location data is actually personal property at all, and complaining that since this is not well established by the defendant's case the 4th amendment protections afforded to one's personal papers or effects do not apply.