It's more than just privacy -- that they nailed him on something irrelevant...that he wasn't even doing for a month of surveillance yet, smacks of using a de facto general warrant, which the Constitution specifically forbids.
They must list the crime they suspect you of, and present some evidence, and list the things to search and stuff to seize.
They cannot just go get a general warrant to filch through your stuff indefinitely until they find some little law of a myriad existing ones you violated.
That was how politicians abused their power, keeping down uppity people, or people who, you know, didn't pay their donations.a
So government surveillinh him for wn indefinite period, looking for violations of anything, amounts to this behavior.
It would be interesting to see if the decision touches on this.