I suspect that this decision will get overturned. People don't have privacy expectations concerning the appearance of tires of their cars. Any member of the general public can come by and chalk your car. No specialized equipment is required. As I recall, that was the deciding factor when the SCOTUS ruled that finding pot-growers with the help of a an infrared camera was unconstitutional.
I don't believe the argument being used here is about expectations of privacy - its in regards to the trespassing of a police officer by interacting directly with your property.
Your car is parked in a public space. A dog could walk by and mark it. No wanting something to happen is quite different from having a reasonable expectation it won't happen.
Kyllo was decided by a narrow 5-4. That case was by far stronger. It involved a person's home, first of all. And as I mentioned, it involved the use of sophisticated equipment not generally possessed by the public. Without the camera, the police would have to enter the house to obtain the same information. One can therefore establish an equivalence between the two acts. In the present case, such equivalence does not exist. The police could conceivably just stare at the car for an hour or two. Chalking is thus only a time saver. It's not a search.
