As others have noted, this decision comes from a low-level court. And from what I've seen recently, it won't stand. Indeed, the basis of the opinion is iffy:

As others have noted, this decision comes from a low-level court. And from what I've seen recently, it won't stand. Indeed, the basis of the opinion is iffy: > “If a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one’s finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device,” the judge wrote. Because defendants' right under the 5th to withhold passcodes is not at all settled. And even if they can't be compelled, they can be jailed indefinitely for contempt of court. Even if, as that ex cop in Philadelphia claims, they've forgotten it. So anyway, this is iffy advice: > The best advice for anyone concerned about government overreach into their smartphones: Stick to a strong alphanumeric passcode that you won’t be compelled to disclose.