To my understanding this was a routine repair operation. Yes, if forensic firmware had been installed or something like that, that's be different, but that's not what happened and doesn't appear to be part of the ruling.
I guess an equivalent scenario, and I don't know how this would land in court, would be picking the front door of a house, but not entering. It facilitates the search, bit isn't one? Wherever that falls under the law, this should probably be consistent with it.
> To my understanding this was a routine repair operation.
Even if that's the case, I think that the repair shouldn't have been performed by a detective (a government official whose stereotypical role is searching, not fixing) in a forensic lab.
I guess an equivalent scenario, and I don't know how this would land in court, would be picking the front door of a house, but not entering. It facilitates the search, bit isn't one? Wherever that falls under the law, this should probably be consistent with it.