This is not about communicating via a cell phone at any given moment.

The case is about the ability to film a public figure in the performance of their duties as well taking pictures of public buildings.

It is hard to say that the public does not have the right to film police, border security, etc in action.

People want dash cameras and body cameras on officers but those cameras have often been conveniently turned off, erased, or corrupted when there is an incident.

The bottom line to me is that if a person cannot stop photographers from filming in public places and the government can film people in public places, then the public should have the same right to film government actors who are in public.

To deny the public that simple, basic ability puts government officials and the government itself above the common person when there is no cause to do so.

They most like have Stingray devices that act like a cell tower and can be programmed to do just that.

True, but the case in the OP is about a first amendment issue, not a fourth amendment issue.

So what? It’s still a seizure. How does that fly under 4th Amendment?

The Secret Service is probably more worried about someone using a phone to trigger a bomb or signal assassins/terrorist attackers than their primary being filmed by a camera phone.

And what does this case say about the routine collection of cellphones etc. when someone protected by the Secret Service is around?