3) This doesn't relate in any way, shape or form to the NSA metadata program, because the NSA metadata program is about "data voluntarily given to a third party organisation to which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy" (Smith v. Maryland), whereas the Supreme Court has held that "Fourth Amendment protection afforded to closed computer files and hard drives is similar to the protection afforded to a person's closed containers and closed personal effects" (United States v. Peden), which is covered by the fourth Amendment.
4) SCOTUS went out of their way to make clear that they are not doing an assessment of the constitutionality of metadata: "Because the United States and California agree that these cases involve searches incident to arrest, these cases do not implicate the question whether the collection or inspection of aggregated digital information amounts to a search under other circumstances."
The question in this case has nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA, or hacking. It is whether a police officer can search your phone as part of "search incident to a lawful arrest"."
Today it doesn't, just as the Lawrence v. Texas majority didn't directly address same-sex marriage, but was used as a basis for Perry v. Brown and others.
Why not? Because that wasn't the issue brought before the court. Courts tend to confine their rulings to the scope of the issue at hand... which is what we saw today in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning where they largely shot down recess appointments but did not vacate previous NLRB rulings since the unlawful recess appointments... rulings that will be subjects of separate cases whose eventual rulings will be based on todays ruling.