Well, the government has made a distinction for physical security [1]. So it's probably not too much of a jump to make. That case is probably the closest case l

Well, the government has made a distinction for physical security [1]. So it's probably not too much of a jump to make. That case is probably the closest case law to this one we have, though the facts aren't quite the same (the police didn't have as much evidence for what might be on the phone in that case). [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/court-rules-against-man-who-was-forced-to-fingerprint-unlock-his-phone/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/court-rules-agai... EDIT: Worth pointing out that line in that case is really "physical evidence" vs. "knowledge". The court argues that the fingerprint unlocking the smartphone is closer to a blood sample than a testimony. However, I could definitely see a court seeing this as "it's ok to make someone unlock" because they didn't just collect the physical evidence, but made him take the action of unlocking the phone.