Surely they have enough evidence to convict the accused. The phone likely wouldn't give them anything essential to the case. It's already a wrap.
However, the legal precedent would be invaluable for future <s>rights violations</s>legal proceedings. They have 1. Nothing to lose in this particular case. 2. A maximally effective situation for getting this ruling, complete with irrational fear-based public support ("bcuz turrists!1!").
Seriously. If your goal is to create this legal precedent, go ahead and try to imagine a better scenario under which this could rule in your favor. I'll wait.
You have to understand the accused are dead, and destroyed their personal iPhones before the attacks. There is no criminal trial for dead people.
The only iPhone the FBI have is the work phone, which he might not have used to contact terrorists with it. If he did he'd destroy it as well.
The problem is that judges and politicians are not tech savvy enough to understand why they shouldn't force Apple to make a tool to break passcodes on iPhones. How that makes any iPhone insecure in the wrong hands.
Surely they have enough evidence to convict the accused. The phone likely wouldn't give them anything essential to the case. It's already a wrap.
However, the legal precedent would be invaluable for future <s>rights violations</s>legal proceedings. They have 1. Nothing to lose in this particular case. 2. A maximally effective situation for getting this ruling, complete with irrational fear-based public support ("bcuz turrists!1!").
Seriously. If your goal is to create this legal precedent, go ahead and try to imagine a better scenario under which this could rule in your favor. I'll wait.