The legal situation is more complex and nuanced than the headline implies, so the article is worth reading. This adds another ruling to the confusing case history regarding forced biometric unlocking.
And what if it’s the trunk of his car?
Which better relates to the case in the OP, as the lack of a search warrant was never the question here:
Payne conceded that “the use of biometrics to open an electronic device is akin to providing a physical key to a safe” but argued it is still a testimonial act because it “simultaneously confirm[s] ownership and authentication of its contents,” the court said. “However, Payne was never compelled to acknowledge the existence of any incriminating information. He merely had to provide access to a source of potential information.”
