He isn't "preventing access". He is merely remaining silent on the matter, and has not admitted ownership of the drives or knowledge of the contents or decrypt

He isn't "preventing access". He is merely remaining silent on the matter, and has not admitted ownership of the drives or knowledge of the contents or decryption key. It is important to note that the judge never held that forced decryption of drives he owns violates the fifth amendment; he simply held that, at the time of the government's request, there was no evidence that he actually owned and controlled the drives and their contents. The recent discovery of the data on the other drives convinced the judge that the drives do in fact belong to him, and as a result he is now OK with ordering the forced decryption. If you are doing bad things, you probably shouldn't use a decryption key that you could remember. Store that stuff elsewhere.