[rdpickard]

Not knowing what is on the phone is my point. The FBI is asking for a method to access information on a specific device that impacts all devices of the same type. If there is not a stated reason for positive action, this seems to be unreconcilable with the FBI dismissing concerns about this being a violation of the fourth amendment.

However, I don't know enough about the law to know if probable cause means to take action regardless of the outcome of that action. That seems to be slippery slope toward justified constant mass surveillance.

[tptacek]

The whole point of a warrant is to allow investigators to resolve the question of whether evidence is or isn't located somewhere. By your logic, any time a judge issues a warrant, they might as well issue a conviction at the same time, because the question of what the evidence says needs (in your view) to be settled before the warrant issues!

[rdpickard]

That isn't the intent of my question about the warrant. As I understand it a judge would issue a warrant if there was probable cause that execution of the warrant would prove or disprove the procecution's case against a defendant.

From what I've read, the FBI hasn't made such a claim. Only that it needs to be accessed because Farook committed a crime. The determination of his guilt does not rest on some data stored in the phone.

Going back to my original question, what does the FBI gain in the matter of this case by accessing one device in a way that compromises all existing and future devices? And is the, what I interpret to be a, massive imbalance between cost and gain of the action so great that it represents a threat to the 4th amendment.

The disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer was not intended to be cheeky, but an honest show of ignorance of how these kinds of questions are treated in the judiciary.