That court decision still requires a search warrant. . . and the simple way to even defeat that is to switch off the iPhone or iPad. Once you do that it requires a passcode, not just a fingerprint. Also, after not being open for 48 hours requires passcode. Then even a search warrant cannot compel you to open it. This court's decision won't stand scrutiny. His argument that it is similar to getting a fingerprint for ID purposes is specious, as is his equivalence to providing DNA for ID comparisons. These are two different purposes entirely.
Similarly a series of letters can be used to convey information or it can be a tool to unlock a door. One intrinsically is the data, the other only provides access to the data. Two different purposes. Similarly, a fingerprint, can BE the data or it can be the tool to access the data. Two different purposes. The judge has confabulated the purposes. Stupid.
"......and the simple way to even defeat that is to switch off the iPhone or iPad"
Good to know. My 6+ is due this week.
Especially in light of the recent ruling that police can't make you unlock your phone without a warrant in the first place. I don't see this "fingerprint" case is going to survive appeal.