This is actually getting quite interesting

Let's take it up a notch, shall we?
From
The Patriot Post:
The Obama administration has argued that Americans don't enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to their whereabouts as revealed by their cell phones, and therefore warrant-less tapping is allowed. Not only that, but lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" showing where calls were placed or received.
Now, you know that your cell phone has a GPS tracking device in it, and you make a call anyway. If someone uses that information against you, your argument would be that the Obama Administration was correct in their argument?
To take it further still, from the
EFF:
Residences. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. This is not just a house as it says in the Fourth Amendment, but anywhere you live, be it an apartment, a hotel or motel room, or a mobile home.
However, even things in your home might be knowingly exposed to the public and lose their Fourth Amendment protection. For example, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations or other sounds inside your home that a person outside could hear, or odors that a passerby could smell (although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant). Similarly, if you open your house to the public for a party, a political meeting, or some other public event, police officers could walk in posing as guests and look at or listen to whatever any of the other guests could, without having to get a warrant.
So, in the case that I am
outside of your home, in a
public location, do you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy? It seems to only cover the inside of your home.