> The only part that wasn’t covered by the warrant was just fixing the device in a seemingly conventional way to get it working again.
By 'the only part that wasn't covered', I think you meant "The only part that wasn't within a warrant period" (as opposed to not falling the scope of one of the warrants).
Assuming that, this is what I think you are considering.
Are the constitutional safeguards of these warrants reasonably satisfied here?
Instead, I believe the following is the matter for concern here.
By declaring a repair
[a repair which occurred to enable and assist a search for incriminating evidence]
to not be a search (to not be an action that merits 4th amendment protections)
a court establishes that LEO are now free to forcefully perform certain evidence gathering actions on private devices without a warrant - as long as those actions can be construed as a 'repair'.
By 'the only part that wasn't covered', I think you meant "The only part that wasn't within a warrant period" (as opposed to not falling the scope of one of the warrants).
Assuming that, this is what I think you are considering.
Instead, I believe the following is the matter for concern here.