As mentioned in the article, the current (and consistent across existing rulings) legal theory is that the 5th amendment doesn't apply if it's already been "pro

As mentioned in the article, the current (and consistent across existing rulings) legal theory is that the 5th amendment doesn't apply if it's already been "proven" that you know the passcode, since the self-incrimination is divulging the fact that you know the passcode to incriminating files (therefore, by implication you're responsible for the existence of said files) And since you're not proving this to a jury, but rather a judge, the standard of proof is going to be pretty low for a smartphone. Orin Kerr thinks possession of a phone at time of arrest will be enough to prove to a judge that you know the passcode, and given how low-level judges operate in the real world I'm inclined to agree (in practice, not legal theory or what's just.) Anyway, iCloud backups are still fair game, so it's not like LEOs can't typically get the information they want anyway even without the passcode.